Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

Would every necessary improvement be brought about at once, if the Scheldt were Belgian territory?

The improvements of the Scheldt near Antwerp, where Belgium is absolute mistress, have for years been the subject of diffuse discussions, by which it is proved that the cause of delay is not to be sought in the joint administration of the Dutch mouth of the Scheldt

Another Belgian grievance is that the mixed committee have not the right to present their views with regard to the construction of dykes and polders along the banks. According to the treaties Holland is, indeed, under no obligation to submit these questions to the committee. Belgium cannot demand that the committee shall be consulted on works executed outside the channel of the Western Scheldt and its mouth.

Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Treaty lirriits the powers of the committee expressly to the river proper.

There is however, no shadow of proof in support of the allegation that Dutch works of this nature have exercised a bad influence on the Scheldt as a navigable waterway.

The creation of fresh polders in Dutch Flanders by the Dutch follows a normal course without ever being pushed to extremes.

Newly originated mud-flats are never dyked in until they have arrived "at maturity" by natural accretion, i. e. when they are no longer submerged at high tide.

c) The pilotage charges.

It is sometimes said that the charges for pilotage on the Scheldt are used by the Dutch as a means to favour the trade at Rotterdam. In all Belgian representations on this subject, however, one thing is always forgotten, viz: that the distance from Antwerp to the sea is much greater than that of Rotterdam. The pilotage to Antwerp by way of the Scheldt is therefore