Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
[Distributed to the Council C. 553. M. 209. 1926. VIII. and the Members of the League.] [C. C. T./N. I.^th Session/P. V.] Geneva, September 17th, 1926. LEAGUE OF MATIONS ADVISORY AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSIT SUB-COMMITTEE FOR INLAND NAVIGATION MINUTES OF THE FOURTH SESSION Held at Paris, July ÿtlj-ioth, 1^26. The Sub-Committee is at present composed as follows : M- Silvain D r e y f u s (appointed b y the French Government), Vice-President of the General Council of Roads and Bridges and of the Supreme Council for Public Works, Member of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation, Chairman; M. G. P opesco (appointed by the Roumanian Government), Professor of Engineering at the Bucarest Polytechnic College, Director-General of the National Industrial Credit Association, Vice-Chairman ; Mr. J. G. B a l d w in (appointed by the British Government), representative of Great Britain on the International River Commissions; M. Gaëtan D o b k ev ic iu s (appointed by the Lithuanian Government), Consulting Engineer, formerly Counsellor of Legation; M. Henri R e in h a r d t (appointed by the Austrian Government), formerly Ministerial Counsellor; Dr. A. Stie v e n a r d (appointed by the Belgian Government), Inspector of Belgian Railways ; M. T sa ng-Ou , formerly Chinese Delegate at the Barcelona Conference, Assistant Director- General of the Lunghai Railway; M. Bohdan W in ia r s k i (appointed by the Polish Government), Professor in the Faculty of Law at Poznan University. Secretary : M. R o m e in , Member of the Communications and Transit Section of the League of Nations Secretariat. 375 ^ 425 (A) 9/26. Imp. Berger-Levrault, Nancy. FIRST MEETING Held, on July çth, 1926, at 11 a.m. Chairman : M. Silvain D r e y f u s . Present : All the members of the Sub-Committee, with the exception of Mr. Baldwin and M. Popesco and M. Tsang-Ou, replaced by M. W a n g -H a n g , also Dr. A. S e e l ig e r , temporary member of the Advisory and Technical Committee (appointed by the German Government). Also present : M. J. H o s t ie , Secretary-General of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation. Secretary : M. R o m e in . The Ch airm an submitted to the Sub-Committee a letter from Mr. Baldwin tendering his excuses for being unable to be present during the session, and telegrams from M. Popesco and M. Rossetti. M. Popesco had been delayed on his journey by the flooding of the Simplon, but hoped to be present at next day’s meeting. M. Rossetti, who had been invited to attend the present session, had informed the Secretariat that at the last moment he had been prevented from attending by family reasons. 1. Adoption of the Agenda. The Ch a ir m a n pointed out that the draft agenda circulated to the members of the Sub-Committee included three items : (1) Enquiry into the position of inland navigation in Europe; (2) Unification of statistics; (3) Report on the work of the Committee appointed to draw up a uniform model tonnage-measurement certificate for vessels employed in inland navigation. The draft agenda was adopted as it stood. 2. Enquiry into the Position of Inland Navigation in Europe. The Chair m a n gave a brief summary of the replies sent by the various Governments to the circular letter, dated February 12th, 1925, addressed to them by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations (see Annex 1). Germany. The German reply, dated July 12th, 1925, reported that the state of German navigable waterways was, in general, excellent. Canalisation works on an extensive scale were in progress. Inland navigation was, however, suffering from the general economic depression. M. S e e l ig e r explained that the German Government had recently forwarded to the Secre tariat a supplementary reply, giving particulars in regard to improvements which had been carried out since the German Government’s original reply. He enquired whether this supple mentary' information had also appeared in the final edition of the replies of Governments. He laid stress on the fact that the principle of free navigation was applied in the most complete fashion in Germany, whereas such was not the case in all the neighbouring countries. Austria. The Ch airm a n said that in the Austrian reply, dated May 16th, 1925, the opinion was expressed that the position in regard to the navigation of the Danube left much to be desired. This was due to the fact that the principle of full and absolute freedom was not yet applied. The Austrian Government recommended that the statute of the Danube should be brought into harmony with the Treaty of Paris 1856 and the Treaty of St. Germain. Belgium. In regard to the reply of the Belgian Government, the Chairman pointed out that the statis tical data supplied by this Government, although of great interest, did not constitute a full reply to the questionnaire. - 3 - He proposed to the Sub-Committee that it should request M. Stievenard to be so good as to take the necessary steps in order that supplementary information in regard to the present position might be forwarded to the Secretariat. The Sub-Committee accepted the Chairman's proposal and M. Stievenard undertook to carry out the Committee's wishes. Finland. The Chair m a n said that Finland’s reply, dated May 2nd, 1926, showed that inland navigation in Finland could only be carried on by Finnish vessels. It consisted in the main of the transport of timber from the lake districts to the coast. France. In France, according to the letter of the French Government, dated November 23rd, 1925, traffic was now markedly less than pre-war traffic, this decrease being due to the destruction of coal-mines during the war and the fact that a third of the material was destroyed together with the whole of the navigable waterways in the north. At the present time, traffic had been re-estab lished on all these waterways with the exception of one. In view of the economic situation in France, the French Government had been obliged to restrict itself to the reconstruction of the destroyed waterways and had been unable to proceed to the improvement of other waterways or to the construction of new ones. Great Britain. Great Britain stated, in a letter dated December 31st, 1925, that the Manchester Ship Canal Company was the only undertaking concerned with inland navigation in Great Britain which came within the scope of the enquiry. The Ship Canal could, however, hardly be considered as an inland navigation waterway since it was essentially a port. Hungary. The Hungarian reply, dated February 1st, 1926, gave information similar to that which appeared in the report of Mr. Hines. The Tisza, the principal natural navigable waterway, was only navigable for a distance of 180 kilometres, or 235 at most. Work was in progress for the purpose of regulating the small branches of the Tisza, but it was proceeding slowly in consequence of insufficient funds. Plans for the construction of a Danube-Tisza canal had been drawn up, but in view of the present economic situation there was small hope that they would be carried through in the near future. Italy. The Italian reply, dated May 23rd, 1925, showed that inland navigation in Italy was, in the main, lake navigation rather than river navigation. A Commission had been appointed to consider draft regulations for navigation on lakes, rivers and canals. The work of this Commission was not, however, sufficiently advanced to make it possible to supply details on the subject. Latvia. According to the reply of the Latvian Government, dated May 26th, 1925, inland naviga tion in Latvia consisted chiefly in floating timber down the Daugava, the Lielupe and the Venta. Plans had been drawn up for canalising the Daugava and the streams in the Lielupe basin, as well as for connecting the Musa and the Memele with the tributaries of the Niemen. The canalisation of the Daugava would cost 200,000,000 lats; the expenditure on the basin of the Lielupe, if under taken, would not be very high, in view of the fact that this river ran through fairly flat territory. Luxemburg. The Luxemburg Government stated, in a letter dated May 19th, 1925, that the project for the canalisation of the Moselle, which was a matter of great interest to the Grand-Duchy, had not yet emerged from the stage of preliminary enquiries. Netherlands. The reply of the Netherlands, dated June 26th, 1925, gave particulars in regard to the work relating to the improvement and widening of the Noord, of which the breadth was to be increased to 200 metres. Plans had also been drawn up for raising the William Bridge at Rotterdam and or improving the swing-bridges in the Koningshaven. It was also intended to increase the depth 0 t^.e lower course of the Lek. Further, a project was under consideration for improving com- ^umcation between Amsterdam and the Boven-Rijn. The law of June 12th, 1915, had authorised e canalisation of the Meuse between Maasbracht and Grave and the construction of the junction canal from the Meuse, near Mook, to the Waal, near Nimeguen. The Wcssem-Nederweert canal 1,0 probably be completed in 1927. — 4 — Sweden. The reply of the Swedish Government, dated June 29th, 1925, showed that the Swedish circles concerned were in some apprehension in regard to a proposal for extending the rights of foreigners to convey goods on the lakes, rivers and canals.