conclusions on the present state of the scheldt. The cost of maintenance of the fairway.
We trust we have succeeded in demonstrating that the present situation with regard to the Scheldt has been unjustly attacked by the Belgians, and that the arguments used against Holland are without foundation.
Nothing justifies the theory that Holland abuses her position to the disadvantage of Belgium, and that the latter country's interests are seriously injured in consequence.
At the same time we may emphasize again that if difficulties should be shown to exist, Belgium will always find Holland ready to remedy these by all means in her power.
t would be better if Belgium were to show less distrust and suspicion if she were to insinuate less, as we have seen above that she has done so often. It is only by mutual confidence and goodwill that a question as important as the question of the Scheldt and touching the common interests of Holland and Belgium, can be settled between the two countries. Is it just, for instance, to make, as was done by the Belgians, a grievance of the seizure, in times of peace, of merchant vessels, destined for Belgium, for civil debts, contracted by their owners with Dutch creditors (The "Phoenix", a Danish vessel, and the "Minerva", a German one)? If the Belgians wish to call this hampering the navigation, so they ought to call the seizure, for commercial debts, of any vessel bound for Antwerp, f. i. in port in London or Yokohama. Belgium cannot claim that the normal civil law shall be set aside for her benefit.
With regard to Belgian remarks about the cost of the modern improvements executed in the fairway of the Scheldt, of which the greater part has been charged to Belgium, Holland sees no cause for reproach. According to the treaty of 1839 the latter country is obliged to maintain its part of the river