Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

always necessary to wait for the flood tide. As to the raising and enlarging of the navigable space under the bridge at Vlake, a bridge which to Belgian bargemen seems to be a source of complaint, it must be obvious that this point, like other technical questions touching the navigation, can again be taken into consideration.

Excessive mistrust on the part of Belgium.

The history of the closing of the Sloe and the Eastern Scheldt furnishes a characteristic example of the excessive mistrust which Belgium has shown in questions related to the Scheldt, a mistrust which Holland has done nothing to deserve. When the Dutch plans had assumed a positive form, a long correspondence commenced between Holland and Belgium, in which Belgium called special attention to the possible complete choking up of the Western Scheldt in consequence of the projected closing of the Eastern arm.

The Dutch technical authorities expressly denied the existence of this danger; on the other hand the most serious reproaches were levelled by the Belgians against Holland. When; after several attempts to organize a ioint examination, the Belgian government mstituted a semi-official enquiry, impartial experts were forced to acknowledge that the Dutch point of view was the correct one! The English, French and Prussian governments appointed in 1866 these, experts, each of whom was to present an independent report to his government The inquiry, which did not bear the character of an arbitration, but which was instituted in order to obtain first hand information in a semi-official way, was conducted without any meddling on the part of the Dutch authorities, though they facilitated it by all possible means. When we ask what were the conclusions come to by these foreign experts, as commumcated by the Belgian authorities to the Dutch government, it is found that with the possible exception, to a certain extent of the English expert, they all failed to see