prepared to admit a similar condominium on the Belgian Scheldt from Antwerp to the frontier. Yet this is what would logically result from their interpretation of the treaties of 1839, and therefore proves their argument to -be altogether erroneous.
Experience has shown that the prospenty of the oorts of Rotterdam and Amsterdam is perfectly compatible with that of Antwerp. AH three ports have largely had their share of the increase in shipping during the decades which have preceded the war. Each has its own special line. Antwerp is chiefly he port for merchandize in bales, and speciahzes in he Led steamship lines and export. Rotterdam ,s the port of transit for goods in bulk; Amsterdam is also a port for cargoes in bales, for fixed steamship l.nes and for Dutch colonial producer
The present status of the mouths of Rhine and Scheldt guarantees a prosperous future for all three in an equal degree.
2. The manner in which the treaties of 1839 have been cdrried out.
Since the commencement of the "diplomatic war" on the subject of the treaties of 1839, Holland has been represented as having often carried out these treaties in a vexatious manner. We shall now proceed to refutè in detail these allegations and to show he unreasonableness of the accusations made against the attitude of this country.
For this purpose we shall successively discuss. «) The closing of the Eastern Scheldt and the connec ion with the Rhine. The canal of Hansweert;
ft) The control over the channel and the mouth of the Western Scheldt; ■c) The pilotage charges;
d) The application of the pilotage regulations;
e) The canal from Ghent to Terneuzen; ƒ) The drainage of Flanders;