[Distributed to the Council C. 12. M. 7 . 1925. VIII. and the Members of the League.] (C. C. T./C. J./N . I./ist Session P. V.)
Geneva, Jan u ary 15th, 1925.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
ADVISORY AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSIT.
Joint Session of the Legal Committee and the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation.
MINUTES OF THE FIRST SESSION
Held at Geneva, November z^th-zbth, 1924.
(With Annexes.)
The Legal Committee is at present composed as follows :
His Excellency Dr. F. J. U r r u t ia (appointed by the Government of Colombia), Envoy Extra ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Switzerland (Chairman). His Excellency Dr. J. G. G u e r r e r o (appointed by the Government of Salvador), Envoy Extra ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in France and Switzerland (Vice-Chairman). M. B. W in ia r s k i (appointed b y the Government of Poland), Professor of Lawy at the University of Poznan. Jonkheer W . J. M. v a n E y s in g a , Professor at the University of Leyden. M. J. H o s t ie , former Legal Adviser to the Belgian Department of Marine, Secretary-General of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation.
The Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation is at present composed as follows :
M. Silvain D r e y f u s (appointed by the Government of France), Inspector-General of Bridges and Roads, Member of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation (Chairman). M. G. P o p e sc o (appointed b y the Government of Roumania), Professor, Director-General of the Société nationale de crédit industriel (Vice-Chairman). Mr. J. G. B a l d w in (appointed by the Government of the British Empire), Representative of Great Britain on the International River Commissions. M. G. D o b k e v ic iu s (appointed by the Government of Lithuania), Engineer, Counsellor of Lega tion. M. A. St ie v e n a r d (appointed by the Government of Belgium), Inspector of Belgian Railways. M. B. W in ia r s k i (appointed by the Government of Poland), Professor of Law at the University of Poznan. M. T sang-O u , former Delegate for China at the Barcelona Conference.
Secretariat: M. R . H a a s , Secretary-General of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit; M. J. R o m e in , Secretary of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation.
S.d.N. 575 (F.j £25 (A.) 1/24. Imp. Kuniiig. FIRST MEETING.
Held on Monday, November 24th, 1924, at 3.30 p .m .
Chairman : His Excellency M. G u e r r e r o .
Present: All the members of the Legal Committee, with the exception of His Excellency M. Urrutia ; all the members of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation, with the exception of M. G. Popesco and M. Tsang-Ou, who was replaced by M. O u a n g -H a n g , mem ber of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit ; Also : His Excellency M. A. S e e l ig e r , Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed by the German Government as temporary member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, assisted by M. P eters, Secretary of State at the Ministry of Public Works of the Reich ; His Excellency M. F. V e v e r k a , Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed by the Government of Czechoslovakia as temporary member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, assisted by M. V. K r b e c , Engineer, Counsellor of Legation. Secretariat :
M. H a a s, Secretary-General of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit ; M. R o m e ix , Secretary of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation.
Dispute as to the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty concerning the Oder (Odra).
The Ch a ir m a n asked the representatives of the countries concerned to state their point of view ; there would then be a general discussion, and later a special Sub-Committee might be formed to seek a solution of the question.
M. van E y s in g a paid a tribute to the clearness and precision of the report of the Commission presided over by M. Hostie, which had already studied this problem (see Document C .676. M. 240.1924. VIII).
M. S e e l ig e r said that the question at issue was rather one of law than of fact, and turned on the point whether, under the terms of the Treaty of Peace, the Oder and its tributaries should be internationalised only up to the Polish frontier or up to the point at which they ceased to be navigable. The German view was that the tributaries must be regarded as internationalised up to the limit of navigation. He referred to Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles and considered that the attitude taken up by the Conference of the Danube confirmed this interpretation. The Barcelona Conference had adopted the principle that tributaries, when they traverse more than one country, should be regarded in the same manner as the main rivers. International opinion had accepted this principle, and it therefore seemed clear that the War te and the Netze ought to be regarded as internationalised and within the competence of the International Commission, starting from the point at which they become navigable.
M. W in ia r s k i said that, as a member of the Advisory and Technical Committee, he retained full freedom to express his own opinion, but he thought that in this particular case his position should be the same as that of the members temporarily appointed by the German and Czecho slovak Governments to represent the points of view of the latter. As regards the legal point of view, therefore, he expressed his own personal opinion, which was indeed in entire agreement with that of the Polish Government. He was unable to accept the conclusions in the experts’ report for the same reasons that the Polish expert had found it impossible to concur in the opinion of his two colleagues. Two articles could be quoted in support of the argument opposed to that of the Polish Government: Article 331 or Article 338 (see Annex I). He thought that he was of one mind with the experts in interpreting Article 331 in a sense favourable to the Polish argument. Contrary to the opinion of the German delegate, the expression “which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea” could only refer to the words “all parts” ; consequently, the tributaries of the Oder were only internationalised — that is to say, submitted to an international administration in which non riparian States participated — in so far as they corresponded to this definition — the W art a (Warte) from the Polish frontier (a point to be selected west of Miedzychod) and the Notec (Netze) in its frontier and German sectors from Ujscie (Usch). Furthermore, the speaker wras unable to admit that the opposing theory could be based upon Article 338, since that article, which expressly referred to Articles 332-337, had no connection with the question of international administration. He recalled the discussions which had taken place on this matter within the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways at the Peace Conference. After a period of confusion and hesitation, the Commission fixed upon the distinction between th e regime and the administration proposed by the late Secretary-General of the Commission, M. A. Charguéraud. The provisions concerning the regime (Articles 332-337) were to be replaced b y a general convention with regard to navigable waterways of international concern ; this conven tio n existed to-day in the form of the Barcelona Convention. On the other hand, the provisions relating to the administration were purely political, their object being to assure access to the sea for land-locked States. The rivers under international administration were designated as rivers 0f general international concern. Those which in their navigable parts traversed or separated two or more States, and for this reason had to be open to flags of all nations without being subject to international administration, were to be called rivers of common concern. The Barcelona Con vention had adopted this distinction. It had concerned itself solely with the regime for these two kinds of rivers, leaving the question of international administration exactly where it remained in virtue of the Treaties of Peace. The Convention had noted that the Treaties had instituted an international administration over certain parts of the river systems therein mentioned and had carefully avoided anything which might extend or diminish the territorial competence of the river commissions. The speaker recalled the numerous interventions in this direction at the Barcelona Con ference. The various articles in the Treaty of Versailles supported this theory, and subsequent practice at the Barcelona Conference did not appear to have departed from it. In particular, the provisions of the Navigation Acts of the Elbe and the Danube could not be quoted against the Polish case, since, of the numerous cases cited by the delegate, that of the Maros seemed to him to be the only one at variance with this theory. But this departure was based upon the consent of Roumania. The consent of the Powers territorially concerned was a conditio sine qua non of any extension of the territorial competence of the river commissions. Poland, however, was not obliged to adhere to the Navigation Act of the Oder, as wTas the case, for example, with Germany; she was not bound to give her consent to any extension of international administration beyond the stipulations contained in the Treaties. Furthermore, it was hard to see on what principle or in the name of what interests Poland could be called upon to agree to such extension, since the interests of international navigation were fully safeguarded by the provisions with regard to the regime •— that w'as to say, the freedom of navigation under the conditions laid down in the Treaties. Poland w'ould certainly not refuse this freedom of navigation. Moreover, it could not be said that, on the Oder, Germany alone had to submit to international administration, which extended also, although necessarily on very unequal terms, to the territories of Poland and Czechoslovakia. Poland strongly desired that the difficulties which had unfortunately arisen during the discussion of the Navigation Act of the Oder should be cleared away as quickly as possible, and the speaker hoped that negotiations would lead to a solution which, while fully safeguarding the interests of navigation, would recognise the legitimate rights of Poland. It wTas obvious that the question of the Bromberg Canal, which had been artificially linked up with the problem of the Oder tributaries, ;ay entirely outside the discussion.
M. V e v e r k a said that the problem fell into two parts: first, the territorial delimitation of the international regime on the Oder system, and, secondly, the territorial competence of the Inter national Oder Commission over that system. As regards the first point, he considered that the terms of Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles were decisive. . In the sentence "...are declared international... all navigable parts of these river systems which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea”, the word “provide" might refer grammatically either to “all navigable parts’’ or to “river systems*’. But after a careful study of the original texts wrhich had served as a basis for the deliberations of the Commis sion on Ports, Waterways and Railways of the Peace Conference, he had come to the conclusion that the word “provide” referred to the words “all navigable parts”. Nevertheless, he did not accept the conclusions of the two members of the Commission of Enquiry. He thought that the words “all navigable parts of this river system” meant each water way or tributary as a whole in so far as it was naturally navigable, and not only some section of such tributary. It was therefore this waterway or tributary of the main river regarded as a unit which must provide more than one State with access to the sea through its naturally navigable part. It followed from this interpretation that the international regime stipulated in the Treaty of Peace must be applied to the tributaries of the Oder, which provided more than one State with access to the sea, over the whole of their naturally navigable course up to the point at w'hich they became navigable irrespective of political frontiers. This interpretation clearly excluded all purely “national ” tributaries from the application of the international regime of the Oder system. The speaker cited the application of the principles of the Act of Vienna to the tributaries of the Danube in the Convention of July 23rd, 1921. The representatives of twelve States wTere unanimous in extending the international regime to the tributaries of the Danube, viz., the Tisza, the Drave and the Maros. He found it difficult to accept another interpretation in regard to the tributaries of the Oder, the more so as the Treaty of Versailles in the same spirit had extended the international regime of the Elbe as far as the confluence of the Vltava (Moldau), which was on Czechoslovak territory. The speaker shared the view of the two members of the Commission of Enquiry regarding the application of the Barcelona Convention to the Oder system in virtue of Article 338 of the Treaty of Versailles, which provided that the general definition laid down in that Convention should supersede the provisional definition given in Article 331. He desired to lay special emphasis °n the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to Austria (see Annex I). As regards the territorial competence of the International Oder Commission, he considered that the root of the matter was contained in Article 341 of the Treaty of Peace, which said that the Oder would be placed under the administration of “an international Commission”. By the term Oder” must be understood the whole of the international system defined in Article 331. He therefore supported the opinion of the two members of the Commission of Enquiry as regards the extent of the jurisdiction of the Oder Commission. 4 —
Such was his opinion as regards the legal aspect. He wished, however, to say that he was prepared to accept any practical and fair solution which might be proposed or accepted by the States concerned. Mr. B a l d w i n quoted the passage from the minutes of the International Oder Commission in which M. Charguéraud said that, "in principle, he shared the opinion of the British delegate.’’ “The Committee had not met to study the reasons for the internationalisation of rivers in general and of the Oder in particular. Its duty was to apply Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles. If it had any doubt as to the meaning of this clause, it might usefully refer to the application which had been given to it on other rivers and also to subsequent discussions on the question governed by this article. In the first place, in virtue of this clause, the Oder must be internationalised from its confluence with the Oppa ; there could be no doubt on that point. There might be some doubt as regards the tributaries, but this doubt could not subsist in face of the interpretation which had been given by the Danube Conference to this same clause. The Statute of the Danube interna tionalised tributaries which traversed or separated two or more States, starting from the point at which they became navigable, even if this point was situated in a sector exclusively in the territory of an upstream State. ’’ M. S e e l ig e r supplemented this statement by giving the end of the quotation: "At the Barcelona Conference, which was in some sort the continuation of the Treaty of Peace, the same point of view had prevailed. M. Charguéraud regretted to have to disagree with the Polish delegate, but he considered it impossible to depart from the terms of the Treaty and from the application which had so far been given to it”. M. W in ia r s k i replied that the Elbe and the Vltava (Moldau) were internationalised on Czechoslovak territory, because it was expressly specified in the Treaty of Peace that this should be the case. It was in pursuance of the Treaty of Peace, and not by a simple deduction from its clauses or from the clauses of the Barcelona Convention, that the international admi nistration had been set up. Czechoslovakia, moreover, had expressly asked for this regime. M. S e e l ig e r replied that Germany could not take into consideration the reasons which might have led to the insertion of such-and-such an article in the Treaty of Peace. All that existed for her were the Treaty she had signed and the interpretation of this Treaty given in the “Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace”, where it is stated “the provisions regarding internal navigation routes apply only to river systems which are all international as defined by the Congress of Vienna”. The fundamental principle was that of joint administration, i.e., that a river traversing or separa ting several States must be internationalised up to the point at which navigation ceased. It was true that the Moldau (Vltava) had been internationalised by special arrangement, but such an arrangement was not necessary as regards a river affecting the interests of more than one State. M. van E y s in g a said that if he had to act as a judge in this case, he would have to weigh very carefully the various arguments before coming to a decision. This was not the case, however, and the mission assigned to the Committee by the Assembly was one of conciliation. The legal aspect of the question should therefore be left on one side. That would come, if necessary, before the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Committee should try to find a practical formula acceptable to the parties concerned, which could then be submitted to the Plenary Committee. The Ch a ir m a n said that it was on this principle that he had suggested the appointment of a Sub-Committee, which might include representatives of the three States directly7 concerned and a certain number of other members of the Mixed Committee. The Committee had heard statements on the legal aspect of the question. Perhaps it would now be well for it to hear statements on questions of fact. M. S e e l i g e r , recalling the fact that he was sitting as a temporary member during the discus sion of this particular question, took the opportunity of thanking the Committee on behalf of his Government for having invited him to state his views. He declared himself ready7 to reply to any questions which the members of the Committee would like to ask him. His colleague M. Peters had already replied to the questions put by the Commission of Enquiry. As the latter had. asked to have the information sent in in writing, the German delegation had drafted the note which had been circulated to the members of the Committee (see Annex II). As regards the appointment of a Sub-Committee, the German representative doubted whether he was qualified to act as a member, but he hoped he would be allowed to be present at its meeting. M. W i n i a r s k i said that he had not had time to study' very7 closely the note sent in by the German delegation, and he was consequently obliged to reserve judgment on this document for the moment.
M. H o s t ie said that the note supplied by the German delegation at the request of the Com mission of Enquiry contained information part of which it had not been possible to give the Com mission, and consequently7 it supplied certain deficiencies referred to in the report of the experts.
M. D o b k e v ic iu s thought it would be a good thing if the Mixed Committee could have a detailed statement from a member of the Commission of Enquiry explaining the reasons for which that Commission had recommended a solution to the Committee for Communications and Transit, e.g., as regards the distinction made between the respective importance of the traffic on the through waterway Netze - Bromberg Canal - Brahe, and of the traffic on the section of the Warte above Luban. M. H o s ti e , referring to the map submitted by the German Government, which was before the members of the Committee (see Annex III), explained that, according to information obtained oil the spot and partly confirmed by the German statistics (see Annex IV), the volume of traffic above Luban was much less than below that point. T h e German statistics, however, only supplied figures in regard to the frontier post. To appreciate the importance of the whole sector, it was necessary to take other factors into account, in particular, the importance of the industrial establishments above Luban. It was on facts of this nature that the experts based their conclu sion that the Warte (Warta), above Luban, was navigable within the meaning of the Barcelona Convention, but that the traffic in this sector was of a predominantly local character. It therefore seemed possible to leave out of account the sector of the Warte (Warta) above Luban, provided that, in compensation, an arrangement acceptable to the various parties could be reached on the other points under discussion.
Mr. B a l d w in considered that the navigability of a waterway estimated from the tonnage of the vessels using it was sufficient to determine whether the river had an international character or not. He would like the representatives of the other delegations to give their opinion on this point.
M. V e v e r k a said that the Czechoslovak Government also held this view.
M. W in ia r s k i said that, in his opinion, the question of the Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) Canal should be left outside the discussion, as being outside the scope both of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Barcelona Convention.
M. D o b k e v ic iu s asked w h y the Commission of Enquiry considered that the jurisdiction of the International Commission on the Netze should stop at Naklo.
M. H o s t ie replied that the information of the Commission of Enquiry regarding the Netze (Notec) above Naklo had been somewhat vague. This sector had certainly not been used for navigation since the beginning of the 19th century, and in the condition in which the Commission had seen it, the river was not navigable. According to the German note, it was otherwise in the past, and the German delegation considered that the Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) Canal and the feeder canal ought to be considered as lateral canals within the meaning of the Treaties of Peace and of the Barcelona Convention.
At the invitation of M. H o s t ie , M. R o m e in explained that the feeder canal had been con structed later than the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) Canal, but it was not known for what tonnage it had originally been designed. If tfie canal had been enlarged for the requirements of traffic, it had certainly not been enlarged more than once. To determine the state of navigability of the Middle Netze (Notec), it would be necessary to know what was the condition of that waterway at the time of the construction of the derivation canal at the beginning of the 19th century, i.e., at a comparatively recent date; as information was available for as far back as the 16th century, it ought to be comparatively easy to obtain information regarding the beginning of the 19th.
M. Silvain D r e y f u s said that the construction of the feeder canal had diminished the waters of the Netze above Naklo, which had hampered navigation above that point. The question was to discover whether navigation formerly made use of the sector of the Netze above Naklo, a sector which had been abandoned in favour of the feeder canal and the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) Canal. If this was so, did this artificial waterway constitute a lateral canal within the meaning of the Convention ?
M. P e t e r s commented on the note submitted to the Committee by the German delegation regarding the Warte and the Netze (see Annex II). As regards the WTarte (Warta), M. Peters declared that the assumption that the traffic above Luban was local in character was not in accordance with the facts. It was true that for the years immediately preceding the war no statistics were available for the places of origin or destination of goods imported and exported across the former Russo-German frontier near Pogorzelice. From the fact, however, that more than a quarter of such goods — namely, coal, potash and Thomas slag — were not produced at all in the vicinity of Pogorzelice or in the Warte (Warta) Basin, it was clear that the traffic was not purely local and that such goods must have been transported from a great distance. Moreover, the local character and the amount of the traffic were not the only decisive factors for classifying a river as naturally navigable. So far as he was aware, there was at present no navigation on the Vistula above Warsaw ; at most, there was a very small amount of purely local navigation. The town of Warsaw, although it had a population of almost 1,000,000, possessed no port, and the traffic on the Vistula, even below that town, was not only unimportant but was also very irregular, owing to the fact that the neglected state of the river made navigation practically im possible. Notwithstanding, no one had ever doubted that the Vistula below Cracow was a naturally navigable waterway. The same criterion must be adopted in estimating the navigability of the Warte (Warta) in its present condition, above the former Russo-German frontier. The section between Pogorzelice and Luban had been rendered navigable by the Prussian Government not for vessels of 150 tons, as stated in the report, but for vessels of 200 tons. As regards the Netze (Notec), M. Peters explained that from the point of view of navigability, from Eichorst to Nakel, the river presented the same natural features as the sectors above Eichorst and below Nakel. The volume of water and the gradient were practically the same in all three sectors. It was true that in the middle sector navigation had practically ceased, but this fact was due entirely to the radical modification effected in the natural current of the river owing to the diversion of the greater part of the Upper Netze (Notec) waters for the feeding of the Bromberg — 6 -—
(Bydgoszcz) Canal. If it were found desirable and feasible to restore the natural volume of water to the Eichorst-Nakel section, the river would again become naturally navigable like the Netze (Notec) below Nakel. M. Peters reverted to the question of the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) Canal. He explained that it had been constructed under Frederick the Great for boats of 32 tons and not for boats of 50 tons. As the water was only one metre deep and the locks were small, bigger boats could not use the canal. The assumption that navigable waterways of this depth could always be utilised was con firmed by the fact that in England, out of 120 waterways, 31 were adapted for boats of under 30 tons and 61 for boats of under 50 tons. The feeder canal which started from the Netze (Notec) near Eichorst and joined the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) Canal near Fuchsschwanz (Lisi Ogon) had formed part of the original scheme and had been constructed at the same time as the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) Canal—namely, between 1772 and 1774, and not, as stated on page 5 of the report, at the beginning of the 19th century. He concluded by declaring his willingness to reply to any questions which might be put to him.
After an exchange of observations between M. v a n E y s in g a , M. P e t e r s and M. H ostie, regarding the dates on which the extension of the canals was undertaken, M. S e e l ig e r sum marised, as follows, the German point of view: It had been asked whether this sector of the Netze was a navigable waterway : the answer was that there had formerly been navigation in this sector of a volume corresponding to the possi bilities and requirements of the period; the flow of water in this part of the river had been dimi nished, and navigation had been diverted to the artificial channels which had thenceforward assumed the character of lateral canals within the meaning of the Barcelona Convention.
M. H o stie recognised th a t the question had been simplified by M. Peters’ explanations. One question which remained to be settled by the technical experts was that of the bends: were they, in the natural state of the river, of a nature to render navigation impossible ?
M. D o b k e v ic iu s did not think that the bends constituted an obstacle to navigation in this sector of the Netze. Appointment of a Sub-Committee.
The Co m m it t e e decided to appoint a Sub-Committee composed of M. W in ia r s k i, M. V ev er k a , Mr. B a l d w in , M. Silvain D r e y f u s , M. H o s t ie and M. v a n E y s in g a .
At the suggestion of M. Silvain D r e y f u s , M. G u e r r e r o , Chairman of the Committee, ivas appointed to act as Chairman of this Sub-Committee. Lastly, M. S e e l ig e r , who stated that he did not wish to be a member of the Sub-Committee, was invited to attend its meetings.
SECOND MEETING
Held on Tuesday, November 25th, 1924, at 5.30 p.m.
Chairman : M. G u e r r e r o .
Present : All the persons mentioned in the minutes of the first meeting.
Dispute as to the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty concerning the Oder (Odra) (continued).
The Ch a ir m a n said that the Sub-Committee appointed on the previous day to study this question had not concluded its work, and he proposed that the continuation of the discussion should be adjourned until the following morning. This was agreed.
Dispute as to the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty concerning the Juris diction of the European Commission of the Danube.
T h e Ch a ir m a n observed that the following question appeared on the agenda of the Committee:
The dispute which has arisen between Great Britain, France and Italy, on the one hand, and Roumania on the other, with regard to the application of Articles 346, 348 and 349 of the Treaty of Versailles to the question of the limits of the jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube. In conformity with the usual procedure, the letter by which the British Government laid this dispute before the Committee for Communications and Transit had been communicated to the — 7 ~
R oum anian Government. It seemed unlikely that the reply of the Roumanian Government would arrive before the end of the present session of the Committee. In these circumstances, th e Chairman proposed that the Committee should postpone the consideration of this question and give the Chairman of the Committee for Communications and Transit the necessary powers to appoint at a later date a Commission of Enquiry to study the question, as had been done in the case of the Oder, and to subm it a report at the next joint session of the two Committees.
Mr. B a l d w i n supported the twro proposals made by the Chairman. He added that the post ponement of the discussion was the more desirable inasmuch as the Roumanian representative on the Committee for Communications and Transit, M. Popesco, was at present absent on account of illness. The two proposals of the Chairman were adopted by the Committee.
THIRD MEETING
Held on Wednesday, November 26th, 1924, at 6 p.m.
Chairman : M. G u e r r e r o .
Present ; All the persons mentioned in the minutes of the first meeting.
Dispute as to the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty concerning the Oder (Odra) (continued).
The C h a ir m a n said that the Sub-Committee appointed by the Mixed Committee to study the question of the Oder (Odra) had heard the statements of the parties concerned on questions of law and of substance. The Sub-Committee had decided that the best way of finding a solution was by means of conciliation. In this decision it was acting on the principles followed by the League of Nations, which consisted in finding practical solutions acceptable to all the parties. He read the draft resolution drawn up by the Sub-Committee and asked the representatives of the parties concerned if they had any observations to make with regard to this draft (see Annex V).
M. S e e l i g e r said that he would like to study the draft resolution carefully. He understood that wrhen the Mixed Committee had pronounced on the draft, the latter would be submitted to the Committee for Communications and Transit. He asked if he would have an opportunity of making a statement before the Committee. He would also like to know if he would be qualified to vote when the Committee pronounced an opinion on the draft.
The C h a ir m a n replied to both questions in the affirmative.
M. Dobkevicius asked why the Sub-Committee proposed that the jurisdiction of the Inter national Commission on the Netze should extend as far as Kreuz instead of as far as Naklo (Nakel), as had been proposed in the experts' report.
M. S e e l i g e r asked the same question. In the course of the previous discussions, no mention had ever been made of the locality of Kreuz, winch was referred to in the draft resolution.
The C h a ir m a n said that the proposed solution constituted a compromise. In other wrords, the role of the Committee was not that of an advisory court but that of a court of conciliation.
M. Silvain D r e y f u s wished to know what exactly was the difference between the present proposal and the original Polish proposals.
M. W i n i a r s k i said that the Polish contention had always been that the jurisdiction of the International Commission should be regarded as extending as far as the frontier. As regards the Warta (Warte), however, if the jurisdiction of the International Commission was to be extended into Polish territory, there could be no question of fixing upon Luban, w'hich was a place of prac tically no importance; they should rather select Poznan. As regards the frontier sector Notec (Netze), the Polish delegation considered that the jurisdiction of the International Commission could extend up to the point at which the Notec (Netze) entered Polish territory. It had been pointed out, however, that the series of locks existing between IT jscie (Usch) and Krzyz (Kreuz) gave ground for doubt as to the natural navigability of this sector. Moreover, the solution allow ing the jurisdiction of the International Commission to extend as far as Krzyz (Kreuz) presented advantages both for the German and Polish administrations.
M. R o m e in made a few observations. The sector of the Netze (Notec) between Kreuz (Krzyz) and Usch (Ujscie) was along the frontier between Poland and Germany. The whole of this sector was artificially navigable, i.e., it was provided with locks. This did not mean that certain parts of the waterway had not been naturally navigable, but only the actual situation could be taken into consideration. As pointed out in the report of the experts, this frontier sector, in virtue of a provisional arrangement between the two countries, was at present under the joint control of the German and Polish administrations, the former being in charge of the seven lower locks and the latter of the six upper locks.
M. H o s t ie said that the Commission of Enquiry had thought it advisable to consider the technical rather than the political character of the waterway in question. At Kreuz began a system of locks for vessels of 400 tons. Then, going up as far as Naklo and passing along the Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) Canal and by the Brahe (Brda) to the Vistula, there was a series of sectors naturally or artificially navigable for craft of the same tonnage, constituting in practice a single waterway, connecting the two systems of the Oder and the Vistula. It had appeared reasonable, in seeking a practical solution, to provide for a single regime for the whole system.
M. S e e l ig e r thought it surprising that in a conciliatory solution the competence of the International Commission was still further restricted, since previously it had been unanimously recognised as far as Usch (Ujscie).
M. Silvain D r e y f u s agreed with this observation.
Mr. B a l d w in suggested that, in order to meet the wishes of the Polish delegation, the refer ence to Luban should be replaced by the words "above Poznan”.
After an exchange of views regarding the frontier sector of the Netze (Notec), the Committee decided to specify that the jurisdiction of the International Commission should extend up the Netze (Notec) as far as Usch (Ujscie).
M. S e e l ig e r , referring to the proposals of the Commission of Enquiry, said that, in his opinion, the deliberations of the Mixed Committee had not justified the contention that the jurisdiction of the International Commission on the Netze (Notec) should stop at Usch (Ujscie).
Mr. B a l d w in explained that the present proposal constituted a whole. It was for the Mixed Committee to decide, taking the opinion of the Commission of Enquiry simply as a guide.
M. W in ia r s k i observed that the draft resolution took no account of the Polish contention in the form in which he had stated it earlier. From the legal point of view, he could not therefore accept this draft resolution. Nevertheless, if the Polish Government was prepared to depart from the purely legal point of view and consider the question on grounds of expediency, he might be able to recommend the proposed solution to his Government as the least inacceptable.
The Ch a ir m a n took note of M. Winiarski s declaration.
M. W in ia r s k i referred to a passage in the German memorandum, which, on page 6, spoke of the partition of Poland as “disannexation” carried out by Frederick the Great. However, he did not wish to lay stress upon this expression, which was calculated to cause the utmost surprise. As regards the Notec (Netze), he questioned the conclusions in the memorandum, as well as the accuracy of the data on which these conclusions wTere based. There wras every reason to suppose that the Notec (Netze) had been navigable since very early days, but when the vast virgin forests in its basin had given place to very intensive agriculture, the flow of water diminished to such an extent that during the last centuries the Notec (Netze) was scarcely to be regarded as a navigable waterway. In its quotations from historical documents the memorandum appeared to have had in mind not navigation but the floating of timber, which took place in only one direction, namely, towards the sea. Furthermore, sufficient proof was furnished by the very nature of the work carried out by the Prussian administration with a view to making the Notec (Netze) a navigable waterway. It was the opinion of M. Wriniarski that the Notec (Netze) above Krzyz (Kreuz) must be regarded as an artificial waterway. As regards the W arta (Warte) it might be admitted that it constituted a navigable waterway below Poznan (Posen), although it had only been made commercially navigable by the work expended upon it. Above Poznan (Posen) it was an artificial waterway. The official docu m ents (e.g., “Denkschrift betreffend die Verbesserung der Schiffahrtstrasse von der Miindung der Netze bis Posen”, Haus der Abgeordneten, 20. Legislaturperiode, I. Session, 1904, D in Nr. 96, Beilage IV; letter of the Kônigliches Wasserbauamt to the Regierungsprâsident, Posen, 18.VI.1912, Nr. 2341) showTed that the Prussian administration had made the greatest efforts to render the W arta (Warte) navigable above Poznan (Posen), although only for vessels of very small tonnage (the memorandum said that it was desired to restore to the Warta (Warte) its character of a naturally navigable river). All this work, however, as appeared from the official Polish documents, did not take sufficient account of the nature of the river, and in the end failed to achieve any permanent results. Traffic on the W arta (Warte) above Luban, seven kilometres from Poznan (Posen), as also on the kwer Notec (Netze), had always been purely local, beet-root, coal, lignite and peat being transported between neighbouring localities. Other transports had only been possible on rare occasions under exceptionally favourable conditions of navigability.
M. V e v e r k a said that he had previously declared that he would vote for any proposal accepted by the parties concerned. If he could consider the declaration of his Polish colleague as a condi tional adhesion, he saw no objection to accepting the draft resolution. — 9 —
M. H a a s recalled the fact that the Sub-Committee had before it a proposal of Mr. Baldwin concerning the indication “above Poznan”.
M. Silvain D r e y f u s asked why the Commission of Enquiry had decided to mention the locality of Luban.
M. H o s t ie explained that vessels of 400 tons could ascend as far as Luban, and that above this point the character of the navigation changed. Incidentally, there appeared to be only one large factory at Luban.
M. S e e l ig e r pointed out that the indication “above Poznan” was rather vague. The Oder Commission would find it difficult to fix a terminal point.
Mr. B a l d w in replied that it was precisely o n e of the duties of international River Commis sions to fix points of this kind.
The Co m m it t e e decided to adopt the indication suggested by Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. B a l d w in recalled the declaration made by his Polish colleague and interpreted by the Czechoslovak delegate. H e desired to make the following statement in explanation of his vote in favour of the draft resolution. Leaving out of account the legal point of view, he accepted the solution proposed as a con ciliatory solution, it being understood that, as the question was to be settled on a practical and not on a juridical basis, this solution must be regarded as final and not as subject to subsequent modification. It was necessary to exclude the possibility of the Committee for Communications and Transit being asked later to modify the solution.
The C h a ir m a n took note of Mr. Baldwin’s declaration.
M. D o b k e v ic iu s expressed his willingness to accept the proposed solution, it being under stood, of course, that it was a conciliatory solution accepted by the various parties.
The Ch a ir m a n asked the Committee to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution.
M. S e e l ig e r said that he voted against the draft resolution.
M. W in ia r s k i said that he also voted against the draft resolution, and referred to his previous declaration.
M. V e v e r k a was doubtful whether he could vote in favour of the draft resolution if it was not accepted by the parties concerned.
The Ch a ir m a n said that, if the draft resolution was rejected by the parties concerned, it could not stand, and a fresh solution must be sought.
M. S e e l ig e r drew the Czechoslovak representative’s attention to the fact that there were other parties interested besides Germany and Poland. The Committee could pronounce an opinion on the draft resolution forthwith. If it gained a majority, it would constitute a solution which could be submitted to the Committee for Communications and Transit. A distinction must be made between the votes taken in the present Committee or in the Committee for Com munications and Transit and the final decisions which the various Governments would have to take in regard to the recommendation made to them by the Committee for Communications and Transit. The Government of a delegate who had voted for the resolution might not adopt the recommendation, and vice versa.
M. H aas reminded the Committee that it had not power to attempt a final settlement of the dispute. The question was whether by a majority it was in favour of transmitting to the Govern ments concerned a recommendation on the basis of which these Governments could come to an arrangement. The vote which the Committee for Communications and Transit would take in its turn would also be of the same character.
M. V e v e r k a agreed that it would be an advisory opinion of the Committee which would be communicated to the respective Governments.
M. H o s t ie considered that in this question there was only one State territorially interested, and that was Poland. The declaration of the Polish delegate was the real factor to be taken into account.
Mr. B a l d w in supported the view expressed b y M. Hostie.
M. D o b k e v ic iu s thought that the Committee could accept the proposed solution on the understanding that the Polish delegate was prepared to recommend it to his Government, subject to the reservations he had made. After an exchange of views between the various members of the Committee, the draft resolu tion, modified in accordance with the views expressed above, was adopted by the Committee (see Annex VI), M. S e e l ig e r and M. W in ia r s k i voting against it.
The Ch a ir m a n said that the vote of the Polish delegate must b e understood in the sense °i his previous declaration. 10 —
LIST OF ANNEXES.
Page I. Texts connected with the Report of the Committee of Enquiry on the Dispute con cerning the Application of the Articles of the Peace Treaty regarding the Oder (Odra) 10
II. The Natural Navigability of the Warte (Warta) and the Netze (Notec) : Statement by the German D e le g a tio n ...... 13
III. Map of the Upper Netze (Notec), with the Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Netze (Notec) 16
IV. Extract from the Statistics for 1913 published by the Statistical Bureau of the Reich. *7
V. Draft Resolution submitted to the Mixed Committee on November 26th, 1924 . 20
VI. Draft Resolution adopted by the Mixed Committee on November 26th, 1924 . . 21
Annex I.
TEXTS CONNECTED WITH THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY ON THE DISPUTE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE ARTICLES OF THE PEACE TREATY REGARDING THE ODER (ODRA).
i. A r t ic l e s 331, 338, 341, 343, 344 a n d 345 o f t h e T r e a t y o f V e r s a il l e s .
“331. The following rivers are declared international : the Elbe (Labe) from its confluence with the Vltava (Moldau), and the Vltava (Moldau) from Prague ; the Oder (Odra) from its confluence with the Oppa; the Niemen (Russtrom-Memel-Niemen) from Grodno; the Danube from Ulm; and all navigable parts of these river systems which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea, with or without transhipment from one vessel to another ; together with lateral canals and channels constructed either to duplicate or to improve naturally navigable sections of the specified river systems, or to connect two naturally navigable sections of the same river. “The same shall apply to the Rhine-Danube navigable waterway should such a waterway be constructed under the conditions laid down in Article 353.” "338. The regime set out in Articles 332 to 337 above shall be superseded by one to be laid down in a General Convention drawn up by the Allied and Associated Powers, and approved by the League of Nations, relating to the waterways recognised in such Convention as having an international character. This Convention shall apply in particular to the whole or part of the above-mentioned river systems of the Elbe (Labe), the Oder (Odra), the Niemen (Russtrom- Memel-Niemen), and the Danube, and such other parts of these river systems as may be covered by a general definition. “Germany undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 379, to adhere to the said General Convention, as well as to all projects prepared in accordance with Article 343 below for the revision of existing international agreements and regulations.” “341. The Oder (Odra) shall be placed under the administration of an International Com mission, which shall comprise : One representative of Poland ; Three representatives of Prussia ; One representative of the Czechoslovak State; One representative of Great Britain; One representative of France ; One representative of Denmark ; One representative of Sweden. — II —
“If certain of these representatives cannot be appointed at the time of the coming into force of the present Treaty, the decisions of the Commission shall nevertheless be valid.” “343. The International Commissions referred to in Articles 340 and 341 shall meet within three months of the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty. The International Com mission referred to in Article 342 shall meet within three months from the dateof the request made by a riparian State. Each of these Commissions shall proceed immediately to prepare a project for the revision of the existing international agreements and regulations, drawn up in conformity with the General Convention referred to in Article 338, should such Convention have been already concluded. In the absence of such Convention, the project for revision shall be in conformity with the principles of Articles 332 to 337 above.”
“344. The projects referred to in the preceding article shall, inter alia: “(a) Designate the headquarters of the International Commission and prescribe the manner in which its Chairman is to be nominated ; “(b) Specify the extent of the Commission's powers, particularly in regard to the execution of works of maintenance, control, and improvement on the river system, the financial regime, the fixing and collection of charges, and regulations for navigation; “(c) Define the section of the river or its tributaries to which the international regime shall be applied.” “345. The international agreements and regulations at present governing the navigation of the Elbe (Labe), the Oder (Odra), and the Niemen (Russtrom-Memel-Niemen) shall be pro visionally maintained in force until the ratification of the above-mentioned projects. “Nevertheless, in all cases where such agreements and regulations in force are in conflict with the provisions of Articles 332 to 337 above, or of the General Convention to be concluded, the latter provisions shall prevail.”
2. E x t ra c t fr o m t h e R e p l y o f t h e A l l ie d a n d A sso c ia t e d P o w e r s to t h e O bservations of t h e G e r m a n D e l e g a t io n on t h e Co n d it io n s o f P e a c e .
"Thus, the provisions regarding internal navigation routes apply only to river systems, which are all international as defined by the Congress of Vienna and by later conventions. The Oder, for example, from its confluence with the Oppa, was declared international under a Treaty be tween Austria and Prussia dated August 8th, 1839; the Czechoslovak State possesses, therefore, a juridical interest in the navigation regime of this river. Nor are the canals mentioned in the Treaty the general canal system of Germany, but only (except in the case of the Rhine-Meuse and Rhine- Danube navigable waterways) the lateral canals constructed to duplicate or improve naturally navigable sections of the same international rivers. It should be noted in this connection that the Czechoslovak State declares itself prepared to place under the administration of the Inter national Commission for the Oder a certain number of canals to be constructed subsequently to extend this system of waterways across its territory. Lastly, as regards the functions of the River Commissions, these are limited to the practical application of the principles laid down either in Articles 332 to 337 of the Treaty or in a future International Convention, which is subject to the approval of the League of Nations. Their powers are not limited to German territory but extend in all cases to the territory of at least one of the Allied or Associated Powers. The internationalisa tion of the Elbe is even extended to one of its tributaries whose course lies solely within Czecho slovak territory, viz., the Vltava (Moldau) up to Prague. In conformity with all precedents, the sole object of the regulations of navigation on these rivers is to establish complete equality between the subjects of all nations, and not to allow any riparian State to use its geographical situation and the fact that a great route of international communication passes through its terri tory as a means of applying economic and political pressure on States dependent on it. Delegates from non-riparian States are included in the River Commissions as well as representatives of the riparian States, as representing the general interest in free circulation on the rivers regarded as transit routes, and, secondly, so that within the River Commissions themselves they may act as a check on the strongest riparian State abusing her preponderating influence to the detriment of the others. For the same reason, in deciding upon the number of representatives allotted to each riparian State, the great factor of freedom of communication must rank first.”
3- Extract from the Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Observations of the Austrian Delegation on the Conditions of Peace.
"The Allied and Associated Powers considered the question as to whether it would be advisable, as the Austrian delegation proposes, to extend the international regime over the entire navigable course of the tributaries of the Danube, i.e.,the Drave, the Save, and the Theiss. It did not seem to them desirable, for the present, to extend such internationalisation further than is rendered necessary by the definition of Article 291 (286), i.e., to apply it to a navigable section of a river system giving only one State natural access to the sea; they wish, however, to point out that in virtue of the General Convention provided for in Article 299 (293), such internationalisation may ■)e applied to the whole or part of a river system which might be included in a fresh general défini- Non made by the said Convention. In the meanwhile, in the same way as the internationali sation of the Elbe was extended to the Vltava as far as Prague (at the express demand of the — 12 •—
Czechoslovak State), the said Powers now agree (by means of an amendment to the text of Article 291) to authorise specific agreements between riparian States for the extension of the supplication of the international regime. "The Allied and Associated Powers are of opinion that the clauses of Part XII of the Condi tions of Peace, in their present definitive and complete form, will, when put into practice, prove able and efficacious for the resumption, in as short a period of time as possible, of free communi cations in Europe, which the Allied and Associated Powers, like the Austrian delegation, are parti cularly desirous to ensure and guarantee,”
4. E x t r a c t fr o m t h e R e s o l u t io n a d o p t e d b y t h e A s se m b l y o f t h e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s on D e c e m b e r 9th, 1920.
“The Members of the League of Nations are hereby invited to send special representatives to a General Conference on Freedom of Communications and Transit to meet at Barcelona as soon as possible after the meeting of the Assembly. The Conference shall be invited : “(1) To draw up, under conditions laid down in the resolution regarding the relations between the Technical Organisations and the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations, the measures which may be taken by the Members of the League in fulfilment of that part of Article 23 (e) of the Covenant which concerns freedom of communications and transit, as well as the General Conventions on the international regime of transit, of ports, of waterways, and of railways, referred to in Article 338 and 379 of the Treaty of Versailles; "(2) To determine under the same conditions whether the measures which it elaborates shall take the form of draft conventions, to be ratified by the Members of the League, or of 'recommenda tions’ to the various Governments, or of draft resolutions, to be adopted by the Assembly of the League.”
5. E x t r a c t o f t h e F in a l A ct of t h e B a r c e l o n a Co n f e r e n c e s ig n e d b y t h e D elegates to t h e Co n f e r e n c e on A p r il 20th, 1921.
"In order to comply with the above-mentioned resolutions of the Assembly, the Rules for the Organisation of Conferences and the Rules of Procedure, as well as the conventions and Sta tutes and other instruments enumerated above, will be transmitted to the Secretariat-General for all necessary action. "These Conventions and Statutes are intended to form part of the series of Conventions contemplated in Articles 338 and 379 of the Treaty signed at Versailles on June 28th, 1919, and in the corresponding Articles of the other Treaties of Peace.”
6. E x t r a c t fr o m t h e R e s o l u t io n a d o p t e d b y t h e A ss e m b l y o f t h e L e a g u e o f N ations on D e c e m b e r 8th, 1920.
“Relations between Technical Organisations, the Council and the Assembly of the League. “The two following principles will serve as a guide :
“The interior working of the various organisations should be independent.
"They will prepare their own agenda and communicate it to the Council of the League before discussion thereon takes place. “In exceptional cases in which it is necessary to add to the agenda during the progress of a Conference of a Technical Organisation, and time does not admit of the communication of the additional item to the Council, any decision arrived at thereon shall be provisional only until the Council has had an opportunity of exercising its control.”
“Their relations with the Members of the League should be under control.
“Before any communication of the results or proposals of the Technical Organisations is made to the Members, and before any action concerning a Member is taken, the Council of the League must be immediately informed, in order that they may be able to exercise their pow er of control, if necessary. In this case, the Council may decide that the communication or action in question shall be postponed and request the Technical Organisation concerned either to withdraw the question from its Agenda or to submit it to further consideration. “The Technical Organisation may, however, request that the decision taken by the Council shall be discussed at the next meeting of the Assembly. “The Assembly of the League should be informed of all questions dealt with in the interval between its meetings by the Council in the exercise of its power of control defined above. It may either be informed of such questions by the Council on its own initiative or on the proposal of an}' one of its Members, or a t the request of one of the Technical Organisations of the League. ” — 13 —
- E xtract fr o m t h e D eliberations of t h e Co u n c il at its M e e t in g o n J u n e 18th, 1921 "The Council adopted the conclusions of the representative of Spain: “The exercise of the right of control by the Council, or ultimately by the Assembly, over the Technical Organisations of the League involves the consideration of the following questions : “(1) Has the Technical Organisation concerned exceeded the limits of its competence? “(2) Have the proceedings of the Technical Organisation conformed, in the opinion of the Council, to the Covenant ? “...I consider that—since the Barcelona Conference has confined itself to the questions placed on the agenda and has dealt with them in a manner which appears to be fully in accordance with the spirit and with the terms of Article 23 (e) of the Covenant—there is no necessity for the Council to exercise its right of control, but that it may empower the Secretary-General, as laid down by the terms of the resolution of December 8th, 1920, to transmit immediately a report on the work of the Barcelona Conference to all the Governments concerned. “The States which have already signed the Conventions at Barcelona will then be in a position to proceed as quickly as possible with the ratification of these Conventions; the other States will, with the least possible delay, be enabled to sign and subsequently to ratify them.”
Annex II.
THE NATURAL NAVIGABILITY OF THE WARTE (WARTA) AND THE NETZE (NOTEC).
Translation]. Statement by the German Delegation. I. General. The capacity of a river to serve as a natural waterway depends on the hydrological conditions created by nature, and of these the most important are the gradient and the volume of water. The simplest proof that a river belongs to the category of natural waterways is the fact that it has at all times been used for navigation, and on this point the historical traditions concerning the river traffic which has always been maintained on the Warte and the Netze are of real importance. On the other hand, it cannot be concluded from the absence of navigation that a given river does not belong to the category of naturally navigable waterways. This was admitted a priori by the Polish delegation, when, at the meeting of the International Oder Commission at Swinemtinde, it claimed the Obra and the Kuddow as naturally navigable waterways, although at the present time there is no navigation on either of these two rivers, or at any rate, no "ordinary commercial navigation”. A comparison between these two rivers and the upper courses of the Warte and the Netze as regards the gradient, the volume of water and the other conditions of navigability are of essential importance for the subsequent fixing of the upper limits of navigability on the two latter rivers. In the former Kingdom of Poland, as it existed until the third partition of the country in 1795, it was not uncommon to meet with rivers which were naturally navigable, but which in point of fact were not available for navigation. In a country of that kind, thinly populated and with a limited capacity for production and consumption, the exchange of goods and consequently navigation were of only secondary importance. The big landed proprietors and magnates were infinitely more concerned with the construction of dams in the rivers and thus secure the hydraulic power required for the sawing of timber and grinding of corn. Owing to the weakness of the central authority, such installations were often established in a fashion both arbitrary and detrimental to navigation. Polish Parliaments constantly had to decide upon measures to prohibit this kind of construction and to order the removal of dams which constituted an obstacle to navigation. These decisions were often without effect, but the mere fact that they were taken is proof that the rivers in question were even at that time regarded as naturally navi gable waterways. We shall quote later a whole series of decisions of this nature taken by the Polish Diets. The small dimensions of the craft originally used for navigation on the natural waterways of Poland need cause no surprise. In a country possessing practically no artificial waterways, and even after the beginning of the era of railways, having only a very slightly developed railway system, craft even of small tonnage constituted a means of transport more valuable than the only means of locomotion with which they then had to compete, and which consisted in transporting goods by primitive land routes. Even to-day there are in Germany, England and other countries waterways on which “ordinary commercial navigation” is carried out by means of craft of only 30 to 50 tons. 11. The Warte. When at the time of the second partition of Poland in 1793, the territories called “Greater Poland” fell to Prussia, the river was in point of fact not used for navigation above the old frontier near Schwerin. In many places the river bed was interrupted by dams; there were 12 of these on the short stretch of 48 kilometres between Peysern (Pysdry) and Konin, and these were filled — 14 with tree trunks and piles of stones. In many parts the river had formed lateral arms, had greatly widened out and was blocked up w ith sandbanks. During the thirteen years of Prussian domination — that is to say, until 1806 — the Warte, thanks to the costly works undertaken and vigorously pushed forward, was freed from all these obstacles as far as the upper limit of its natural navigability at Sieradz. Since that time it has been used for navigation as a practicable waterway in spite of the state of neglect and decay into which it was subsequently allowed to fall above Pogorzelice Owing to the fact that at the latter place there was a German frontier Customs post, it is possible to-day, thanks to the import and export lists kept by the Customs authorities, to prove on the basis of reliable statistics that for more than one hundred years the Warte was used regularly and constantly for navigation above the old Prussian frontier. During the seventies, the Customs service, as an exceptional measure, kept note of the places of consignment and destination in respect of cargoes coming from or going to Russia. These documents show, for example, that in 1873, 46 vessels passed from Russia to Germany, namely :
13vessels with a cargo of12,657 quintals from Bialobrzeg 2 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 3,541 ,, ,, Sabarow 31 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 32,566 ,, „ Kolo
During the same period, 20 boats with acargo of 13,901quintals proceeded from Germany to Kolo. In 1874 this traffic increased, in the case of imports, to:
27 vessels with36,344 quintals from Kolo 43 ,, ,, 48,801 ,, „ Konin 5 „ -, 5,456 „ „ Peysern 13 ,, ,, 15,005 ,, ,, Bialystock and, as regards exports, to:
13 vessels with 8,834 quintals for Kolo 16 ,, ,, 4,922 ,, ,, Konin 16 ,, ,, 4,922 ,, ,, Peysern.
The average tonnage of these craft on the Warte was 100 tons. From the fact that the improve ments made at the beginning of the last century by the Prussian Government in the stretch of the river above Pogorzelice were devised for craft of only 20 tons, it may be concluded that the actual results were fivefold in excess of the hopes that had been entertained. Before the war, navigation 011 the Warte was mainly to and from the seaports of Stettin and Hamburg. In the vessels going downstream, the principal cargoes carried consisted of raw sugar, flour and starch, while on vessels going upstream, iron and pyrites — the latter for the chemical factories above Posen -— constituted the chief consignments in bulk. Until the outbreak of the war, the River Shipping Company, Hermann, of Stettin, engaged in regular navigation as far as Kolo. At the time of the occupation of Western Poland by German troops in 1915, the Posen Chamber of Com merce urgently requested the Prussian Government to improve the condition of the Warte above Pogorzelice, in order to promote a very important development of navigation and trade in the Warte Basin. If, during the last years before the war, there wras no further traffic above Kolo, it cannot be assumed that this portion of the river was not naturally navigable, for the simple reason that, as is well known, the Russian Government neglected the upkeep of all traffic routes, and particularly of the waterways in this area of operation, where the war had long been anticipated. It would be interesting from this point of view to compare the traffic on the Upper Warte with that of the Vistula near Warsaw. Immediately before the war, traffic on the Warte amounted at Posen to 216,000 tons, whereas at Pogorzelice it was only 4,787 tons in 1911, 5,945 tons in 1912 and 9,465 tons in 1913. Between Pogorzelice and Luban the river was navigable for vessels of 200 tons ; below Luban, near Posen, for vessels of 400 tons.
III. The Netze.
The fact that the Netze has always been a naturally navigable waterway, and th a t from the point where it leaves Lake Goplo it has regularly been used for navigation, is shown by a number of decisions given by the Polish Diet with the object of removing dams which had been illegally constructed in the river and which impeded navigation. A regulation decreed by the Diet in 1496 declared that the Montwy and the Netze belonged to the category of principal waterways of public concern, and that no dams, mills or other constructions were to be permitted in these rivers, hi 1563 the Polish Diet decreed that the Warte and Netze were “to remain free and nav ig ab le ’. During the years 1565-1567, further orders were issued for the destruction of a mill on the banks of the river Montwy. The name of Montwy is given to that part of the Upper Netze which flows between Lake Goplo and Lake Pakosch. From the time these regulations were issued by the Polish — 15 — pjet until the middle of the last century the nature of the territory watered by the Upper Netze — that is to say, the Kujawien district — underwent no modifications as regards traffic conditions. Navigation, although confined to small craft, continued to maintain its ascendancy over the only means of transport by land which was able to compete with it. About 50 years ago the growth of certain industries which had been established at Kujawien involved the necessity of improving t)ie navigable course of the Upper Netze. The creation of a number of very flourishing sugar factories in this extremely fertile area, the opening of a lime quarry near Bartschin, the establish ment of a chemical factory on Lake Pakosch and other circumstances, led to the canalisation of the Upper Netze during the seventies and eighties. In the three years before the war the traffic on this river am ounted to 154,630 tons in 1911, 205,701 tons in 1912 and 221,403 tons in 1913, and consisted largely of consignments of raw sugar transported to Stettin for export abroad. The Middle and Lower Netze, a little below Nakel, have always been naturally navigable, and at the time of the first partition of Poland in 1772 was used for “ordinary commercial navi gation” . Proof of this is shown by the fact that when it was desired to link up by water Western Prussia, which had been disannexed with the province of Brandenburg, Frederick th e Great constructed a canal near Nakel to join the Netze with the Brahe, a tributary of the Vistula. He tvould have been unable to adopt this expedient unless the Netze had already been navigable as far as the western junction of the canal, near Nakel. It is navigable over all its course below Nakel for vessels up to 400 tons, whereas the Upper Netze, as far as Lake Goplo, has been rendered navigable only for vessels of 200 tons. Communications between these two parts of the Netze is at present assured for purposes of navigation by means of a canal which leaves the river near Eichhorst on the Upper Netze, and proceeds in a northerly direction as far as the highest level section of the Bromberg Canal. This navigable junction canal replaces a much smaller artificial unnavigable waterway built by the orders of Frederick the Great to feed the above-mentioned highest-level section with water from the Upper Netze. In consequence of the transformation of this waterway into a navigable canal, and of the considerable increase in the consumption of water in the old Bromberg Canal, by reason of the development of traffic, the old natural course of the Netze between Eichhorst and Nakel was drained to such an extent that it could no longer be used for navigation, except on a very small scale. Nevertheless, in a work of hydrology, which appeared in Berlin in 1896, concerning the river system of the Oder, it is stated that this old course of the Netze, with an average width of 20 metres and a minimum depth of 0.6 metres, is still potentially navigable on a small scale, provided the channel is cleared of weeds by dredging. It is thus evident that this waterway could fully satisfy the requirements of navigation if it had not been drained by the large quantities of water drawn off since the opening of the junction canal between Eichhorst and Fuchsschwanz (on the Bromberg Canal). It is impossible, in view of the foregoing explanations, to deny the quality of a naturally navigable waterway to the Upper Netze between Lake Goplo and Eichhorst, as well as to the Netze, below Nakel. It is, however, also important, for the purposes of the provisions of international law which are authoritative in this matter, to determine whether, along the broken line, Eichhorst- Fuchsschwanz-Nakel, to which the old course of the Netze between Eichhorst and Nakel is in the relation of a hypotenuse to the two sides of a right-angled triangle, the artificial waterway may be regarded as shortening the course of the stream and linking up two navigable rivers. On a strict interpretation according to the letter, it might be objected that the Bromberg Canal -— that is to say, also the canalised waterway between Fuchsschwanz and Nakel— was not constructed to link up the two sections of the Netze but to connect the middle course of the Netze with the Brahe. When, more than a hundred years after the construction of the Bromberg Canal, it was decided to improve the Upper Netze and the question had to be settled as to what was the most practicable method of joining this section of the river with the Middle Netze, the choice lay between straighten ing the winding course of the Netze from Eichhorst in the direction of Nakel— that is to say, towards the north-west — or constructing a lateral canal between Eichhorst and Nakel. In this latter event there would have been no doubt whatever, even upon an interpretation according to the letter, that a connecting canal of this kind would have been in conformity with the provisions of the Treaties of Peace and with the Barcelona Convention, seeing that this kind of lateral canal must be regarded as an integral part of the river from the point of view of internationalisation. The choice of the other method — i.e., the establishment of a connection by the Bromberg Canal — was determined by hydrological and economic considerations, since it was desired at the same time to improve the supply of water for the Bromberg Canal. As regards the length of the course between the Upper Netze and Nakel, this solution does not involve any detour, since the line Eichhorst-Fuchsschwanz-Nakel is of almost the same length as the winding course of the Netze. If we examine the meaning and the spirit of the international provisions which we are called upon to interpret in this case, and if we consider the economic and practical factors which determined the drafting of these provisions, we cannot fail to regard the two canals forming the sides of the triangle as a single and homogeneous channel intended to link up the two naturally navigable sections of the Netze. During the last three years before the war, the total amount of transport on the Netze at Dratzig Lock, including floating timber, amounted to:
1911 1912 1913 426,837 tons 537,320 tons 403,526 tons
The goods transported by boats amounted respectively to
229,766 tons, 290,792 tons and 229,766 tons. — i6 —
IV. Comparison between Past and Present.
The figures here quoted with reference to the pre-war period do not even approximately apply to the present time. The change in political status has been positively disastrous for navi gation on the Netze and the Warte. At the present frontiers the Warte traffic amounts to only the one h u n d re d -and-twentieth part of what it used to be, and, as regards the Netze.it represents only one thirty-fourth part of the former traffic.
1 ...: III
Annex III.
MAP OF THE UPPER NETZE (NOTEC), WITH THE BROMBERG (BYDGOSZCZ) AND NETZE (NOTEC) CANALS
(Communicated by the German Delegation)
Obene Netze m it Brombergen und Netze -/To>no/
1:300000
| | i ill I — 17 —
Annex IV.
EXTRACT FROM THE STATISTICS FOR 1913 PUBLISHED BY THE STATISTICAL BUREAU OF THE REICH
I. — (a) Movement of Goods in the Principal Ports.
Arrivals Departures
No. of item Goods Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream
Tons of 1,000 kgs. Tons of 1,000 kgs.
B r o m b e r g
5 Dyeing woods, tan and other vegetable dyestuffs ...... 969 — — 6 6b Lignite briquettes ...... 136 3,897 —— 7a C e m e n t ...... 938 — 34 — 24 Fish, crustaceans and shellfish 1,237 345 173 8 28 b R y e ...... — 518 2,326 5,534 28 d Barley ...... 938 130 170 443 3° Hides: raw, cured, undressed: uncured skins...... 1,035 —— 34 31 Building timber ...... 30,466 17 6,634 48 41 a Wheat flo u r ...... 555 10 1,554 33 43 Oils, fats ...... I. 4 IÏ 1,104 88 134 55 Soda of all k i n d s ...... 175 1,900 40 L 4 I 5 6cw Coal ...... 10,989 504 ■—— 68 Sugar ...... 3,036 321 256 8,775
Total Movement: 60,993 15,282 14,142 20,149
P o s e n
xoe Superphosphate of lime ; super phosphates ...... 5,337 — —— 13 Iron or steel rails, with their accessories ...... 1,554 —— 93 24 Fish, crustaceans and shellfish 1,489 — — ■ — 286 R y e ...... — ■— 7,002 28c O a ts...... ■— —-— 5,103 Æd Barley ...... 55 — — 14,475 4 i i R ye f l o u r ...... 40 — 250 78,722 41c B r a n ...... 1,816 ——— 4irf Milling Products ...... I ,3 4 I — —— 43 Oils, f a t s ...... 2,506 — — — 44 Oil c a k e s ...... 1,704 —— 47 Rice, rice flour and rice husks . . 3,454 ——— 68 Sugar ...... 1,157 — — 70,949 69 Various, unclassified ...... 3,248 ---- 332
Total Movement : 35,273 50 250 380,905 — i8 —
I. — (b) Movement of Vessels in the Principal Ports.
Self-propelled Vessels Vessels without means of self propulsion (Sailing Vessels, Merchant Vessels Barges) Total Port Passenger Number Tugs Number Number of Vessels boats Tonnage Tonnage Total Empty Total Empty
Bromberg 186 34,401 717 — 163,100 9°3
Posen — 42 10 — 1,390 1,699 368 469,727 i -751
II. — Transhipment of Heavy Goods.
Transhipped Port From Rail to Boat From Boat to Rail
Tons of 1,000 Kgs.
Posen ...... 60,250 13,293
III. •— (a) Movement of Goods through the Principal Locks.
Passed Lock Upstream Downstream
Tons of 1,000 Kilos.
Direc tion : No.2 : (Bromberg Canal) Netze : Vistula : 305,611, including 164,826 181,5x8 of tim ber floated
Direc tion : No. 12 : (Lower Netze) Bromberg : Oder : 49,922 357,684, including 214,330 of tim ber floated
Direction : Barrage IV, with lock near Bromberg: Oder: Dratzig (Lowrer Netze) 61,649 ' 341,877, including 172,842 of tim ber floated III. — (b) Movement of Vessels through the Principal Locks.
Self-propelled Vessels Vessels without means of self- propulsion (bailing V essels, Merchant Vessels Barges) Locks Total Passenger Number Tugs Boats Number Number of Vessels Tonnage Tonnage Total Empty Total Empty
No. 2 Bromberg Canal upstream (direct. Netze) I 35 44 8 6,373 1,883 841 390,600 1-963 downstream (direction Vistula) 3 38 45 7 6,461 1,883 657 390,391 1,969
Total 4 73 89 15 12,834 3,766 1,498 780,991 3,932
No. 12 Gremadon Lock Lower Netze upstream (direction Bromberg) 264 17 3,o i 7 1,226 774 268,723 1,507 downstream (direction Oder) — 260 17 1 3,210 1,283 143 281,200 1,560
Total — 524 34 1 6,227 2,509 917 549,923 3,067
Barrage IV, with lock near Dratzig (Lower Netze), upstream (direction Bromberg) 295 16 3,135 1,386 843 300,269 1,697 downstream (direction Oder) .— 284 15 — 2,990 L 370 70 305,535 1,669
Total — 579 3i — 6,125 2,756 913 605,804 3,366
IV. — (a) Movement of Goods in Frontier Posts.
Frontier Post Arrivals Departures
Tons of 1,000 kilos.
Downstream U pstream
Zlotowo, Lake Goplo 9-499 1,291
Vendor! (Pogorzelice) 6,998 2,467 — 20
IV. — (b) Movement of Vessels in Frontier Posts.
Sailing Vessels and Barges Total Number 1 Frontier Post Tugs Number °f Vessels Tonnage Total Empty
Zlotowo, Lake Goplo : (arrivals, downstream)...... 67 142 24 18,788 209 (departures, upstream)...... 63 121 98 19,090 148
Neudorf (Pogorzelice) : (arrivals, downstream)...... 3 75 2 7,781 78 I (departures, upstream)...... 3 76 l6 7.685 79
V. Timber Floated. From Thom (Vistula) : Downstream : 491,974 tons.
Annex V.
DRAFT RESOLUTION SUBMITTED TO THE MIXED COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 26th, 1924.
The Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit, H a v in g r e g a r d to the letter from the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated August | 23rd, 1924, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, whereby the following question was submitted to the Advisory and Technical Committee “under Article 376 of the Treaty of Versailles and the Assembly’s resolution of December 9th, 1920, and in conformity with the procedure settled by Article 7 of the Barcelona resolution on the rules for the organisation of [ the Advisory and Technical Committee” :
"The dispute which has arisen between Great Britain, the Czechoslovak State, Denmark, France, Poland, Prussia and Sweden, on the question whether the Inter national Commission, provided for in Article 341 of the Treaty of Versailles in the project I to be prepared under Article 343 and 344 for the revision of the existing International Agreements and Regulations relating to the Oder, is debarred, having regard especially to the provisions of Articles 331 and 338 of the same Treaty, in defining, under Artide 344(c), the section of the river or its tributaries to which the international regime shall be applied, from including tributaries or parts of tributaries of the Oder which are in | Polish territory and are navigable” ;
H a v in g r e g a r d to the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic I to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, dated October 21st, 1924, in which the French I Government expressed its desire “to entrust the Advisory and Technical Committee for Com munications and Transit with the task of undertaking an enquiry and of finding, as far as possible, I by conciliation between the parties, a settlement of the dispute, the scope of which was defined in the resolution passed by the International Commission of the Oder on January 29th, 1924- and which concerns the question whether, in application of the relevant stipulations of the Ireatvl of Versailles, including Article 338, the International Oder Commission should fix the limits of I the international river system on the tributaries of the Oder at the frontier between German) I and Poland or at the point above that frontier at which the said tributaries become natural!) [ navigable” ; W h e r e a s , by virtue of the resolution adopted by the First Assembly on December 9th, 19- 0,1 the Committee is entrusted "with the investigation of any disputes which may be referred to thel League under Articles 336, 376 and 386 of the Treaty of Versailles, and corresponding aitick’l in the other Treaties of Peace, and will endeavour to adjust such disputes whenever possible by | conciliation between the parties" ; — 21 —
W h e r e a s the duties entrusted to the Committee in connection with disputes provided for jn Conventions adopted by General Conferences on Communications and Transit are equally duties of conciliation and friendly settlement ; W h e r e a s the Committee is not called upon to give judgment but to endeavour to bring about the friendly adjustment of the disputes submitted to it, it being open to the parties to subm it such disputes for legal settlement to the Permanent Court of International Justice; W hereas, in order to arrive at a settlement by conciliation, the Committee must necessarily feel fully entitled to submit to the parties any solution tending to a final settlement of the disputes; And, after having taken cognisance of the report of the Commission of Enquiry appointed to collect all legal and technical information likely to help in the settlement of the dispute and composed of M. J. Hostie, President, General H. O. Mance, and Professor L. Babinski, Is of opinion that it should request the parties concerned to agree to the adoption of a conci liatory solution, freely entered into, with a view to the final settlement of the dispute, and that for this purpose it should recommend the following proposal, which appears to it to take into account, as far as possible, the various legal and technical views submitted by the Commission of Enquiry in the course of its proceedings, as well as the general interests of navigation :
1. The jurisdiction of the International Oder Commission should extend upstream on the Warte (Warta) as far as Luban and upstream on the Netze (Notec) as far as Kreuz (Krzyz). 2. From the point on the Netze (Notec) where the jurisdiction of the International Oder Commission would cease as far as its confluence with the Vistula through the Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) Canal, note should be taken of Poland’s undertaking to subject the water way to the provisions of the general Convention of Barcelona on the Regime of Navig able Waterways of International Concern.
It is understood that these dispositions should be regarded as finally disposing de facto, apart from any question as to the interpretation of the Treaty, of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to theregime of the Oder (Odra) system and that they would not involve any consequences or in any way constitute a precedent or in any other way affect the application of similar articles in the Treaties relating to other waterways.
Annex VI.
DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MIXED COMMITTEE ON N O V EM BER 26th, 1924.
The Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit,
H a v in g r e g a r d to the letter from the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated August 23rd, 1924, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, whereby the following question was submitted to the Advisory and Technical Committee “under Article 376 of the Treaty of Ver sailles and the Assembly’s resolution of December 9th, 1920. and in conformity with the procedure settled by Article 7 of the Barcelona resolution on the rules of the organisation of the Advisory and Technical Committee ” :
“The dispute which has arisen between Great Britain, the Czechoslovak State, Denmark, France, Poland, Prussia and Sweden, on the question whether the Inter national Commission, provided for in Article 341 of the Treaty of Versailles in the project to be prepared under Articles 343 and 344 for the revision of the existing International Agreements and Regulations relating to the Oder, is debarred, having regard especially to the provisions of Articles 331 and 338 of the same Treaty, in defining, under Article 344 (c), the section of the river or its tributaries to which the international regime shall be applied, from including tributaries or parts of tributaries of the Oder which are in Polish territory and are navigable” ;
H a v in g r e g a r d to the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, dated October 21st, 1924. in which the French Government expressed its desire “to entrust the Advisory and Technical Committee for Com munications and Transit with the task of undertaking an enquiry and of finding, as far as possible, by conciliation between the parties, a settlement of the dispute, the scope of which was defined in the resolution passed by the Internal ional Commission of the Oder on Jan u ary 29th, 1924, and which concerns the question whether, in application of the relevant stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles, including Article 338, the International Oder Commission should fix the limits of the international river system on the tributaries of the Oder at the frontier between Germany and Poland or at the point above that frontier at which the said tributaries become naturally navigable ’ ; — 22 —
W h e r e a s , b y virtue of the resolution adopted by the First Assembly on December gth, ig 2o the Committee is entrusted “with the investigation of any disputes which may be referred to the League under Articles 336, 376 and 386 of the Treaty of Versailles, and corresponding articles in the other Treaties of Peace, and will endeavour to adjust such disputes whenever possible by conciliation between the parties" ; W h e r e a s the duties entrusted to the Committee in connection with disputes provided for in Conventions adopted by General Conferences on Communications and Transit are equally duties of conciliation and friendly settlement; W h e r e a s the Committee is not called upon to give judgment but to endeavour to bring about the friendly adjustment of the disputes submitted to it, it being open to the parties to submit such disputes for legal settlement to the Permanent Court of International Justice; W h e r e a s , in order to arrive at a settlement by conciliation, the Committee must necessarily feel fully entitled to submit to the parties any solution tending to a final settlement of the disputes ; And, after having taken cognisance of the report of the Commission of Enquiry appointed, to collect all legal and technical information likely to help in the settlement of the dispute and composed of M. J. Hostie, President, General H. O. Mance, and Professor L. Babinski, With a view to the adjustment of the dispute by conciliation, expresses the following opinion, which appears to it to take into account, so far as possible, the various legal and technical views expressed both by the Commission of Enquiry and in the course of its own proceedings, as well as the general interests of navigation:
1. The jurisdiction of the International Oder Commission should extend upstream on the Warte (Warta) to and above Poznan, and upstream on the Netze (Notec) as far as Ujscie (Usch); 2. From the point on the Netze (Notec) where the jurisdiction of the International Oder Commission would cease as far as its confluence with the Vistula through the Bydgoszcz (Bromberg) Canal, the waterway should be subject to the provisions of the General Convention of Barcelona on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern.
It is understood that these dispositions should be regarded as finally disposing de facto, apart from any question as to the interpretation of the Treaty, of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to the regime of the Oder (Odra) system and that they would not involve any consequences or in any way constitute a precedent or in any other way affect the application of similar articles in the Treaties relating to other waterways.