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 situatk» with regard to the Scheldt: ha. been unjusüy attacked by the Belgians, and that the arguments used against Holland are without foundahon.
Nothing justifr» the theory that Holland abuses her posidon to the disadvantage of Belgium, and that the latter country's interests are seriously injured in con-
SeAtethe same time we may emphasize again that if difficulties should be shown to exist Belgmm wi always find Holland ready to remedy these by all
TÜdd^Tener 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 countr es. ïs itTst, for instance, to make, as was done by the Belgians, a grievance of the seizure, in times of peace 7ZchJ vessels, destined for Belgium, for cml debrcontracted by their owners with Dutch credUors Uhe -Phoenix", a Danish vessel, and the "Mmerva , a German one)? If the Belgians wish to call this hamJr ng the navigation, so they ought to call the seizure L commercial debts, of any vesse bound for Ant werp f i in port in London or Yokohama. Belgium Tnuot daim that the normal civil law shall be set
aside for her benefit. 2l^"iiL rost
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 eprfach. According to the treaty of 1839 theplatter country is obliged to maintain its part of the nver