Page images
PDF
EPUB

are maintained. Acquired rights only, say the adversaries of the lease; but neither the faculty to modify them, nor that of creating new ones. In approving the creation of this province, this new moral factor, to which the Sultan had transferred, or with which he had at least shared his administrative powers, was to consult the Provincial Assembly and the government. This broad interpretation of the Treaty of Berlin does not seem exact to us. We believe, on the contrary, that whereas Rumelia remained a province and an integral part of the Turkish Empire, individually it possessed only such rights as had been distinctly conferred upon it; and in order to know what are these rights and powers, we must consult the Organic Statute. Article 13 of this Statute reads as follows:

over:

* * *

The legislative power of the province exercises exclusive competence the laws governing the public highways and the granting of leases, the construction and operating of the provincial railways. as well as all laws regarding public works that are not executed at the expense of the Empire.

Now, it is quite evident that the Eastern Railways are not railways of provincial interest, and also that public works have been built in part at least, at the expense of the Empire. Besides, Article 19 is still more explicit :

The customs, the posts and telegraphs, the lighthouses and the railways of interest to the system of communication of the different provinces of the Empire among themselves and of the Empire with Europe, as well as the manufacture and sale of army weapons and of gun powder are reserved to the Empire. * * *

The article concludes by stating that the governor-general shall not interfere in these administrations except to expedite the service and insure the discipline. "Railways of interest to the system of communication of the different provinces of the Empire among themselves and of the Empire with Europe," what paraphrase could better designate the great Paris-Constantinople railway, traversing Macedonia, Rumelia, the Adrianople and Constantinople vilayets?

Thus, in virtue of the Organic Statute, neither the legislative nor the executive power of the Province have the right to intervene in

contracts effected by the Ottoman Government with the Eastern Railway Company. Under the power of the Treaty of Berlin, any extension of lease granted by the Porte seems to us, therefore, above all objections. But we have still to consider whether or not the situation has changed since 1885, in consequence of the act of TopHané. We are inclined to believe that the situation has changed, since we have affirmed that in virtue of this act and of the subsequent extension given to it, the Porte retained in Rumelia the mere right of suzerainty only, which does not, from whatever angle we may examine it, include concessionary power. In accordance with and only in accordance with the terms of annexation, Bulgaria might, therefore, have considered the convention of 1893 as not having taken place. But, granting that her government, for the sake of diplomatic ceremony, admitted that the juridical situation of Rumelia had not been modified by the union, and granting besides that the Top-Hané act may be interpreted as maintaining the material and pecuniary advantages assured to the Sultan by the Treaty of Berlin, the Bulgarian Government must admit the date of 1958 as the date of the expiration of the lease, as in fact the Minister of Finance did admit in his report to the Sobranjé, and indemnify the company for depriving it of the enjoyment of its right extending over a period of fifty years, which would according to the computation of M. Bousquet amount to about forty-four million francs. In virtue of the contract of 1880, the Turkish Government was to have received forty-five per cent. of this sum.

This sum represents the lucrum cessans. The company claimed besides an indemnity because of the damnum emergens which the cancellation of its lease would bring to it. Several of its pretensions in this respect seemed to be rather ill-founded,16 but it is certain that the per kilometer profit of a railway system increases according to the extent of it, and that it is customary in expropriation cases or in the case of lease cancellation to take account of all the profits that can be proven directly. Under this claim, M. Bousquet estimates

16 The Bulgarian Government was never inclined to admit that it was in any way indebted to the company under this claim.

that there might be due the company, about 3 and one-half million francs covering a period of fifty years. The total indemnity due the company might in this way amount to nearly forty-eight million. francs.

Are there other rights that the Porte can enforce against the Bulgarian Government? The loss of power to grant privileges, resulting from the transfer of sovereignty could not possibly give rise to a claim for indemnity. Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, whenever dismemberment goes on, the public domain of the severed state passes ipso facto to the annexing state, which is not bound to reimburse the original state for expenses incurred in administering and improving that domain. This is so regarding the highways; why should it be otherwise regarding the railways. Still, considering the Turkish Government as the proprietor of the railway line, the Bulgarian Government has acknowledged itself obliged to indemnify it. This is a settlement of a purely political convenience, and need not be examined juridically.

With this understanding, a lump sum of forty million francs has been stipulated in the Turko-Russian and Turko-Bulgarian protocols for the object of indemnifying at the same time the Ottoman Treasury and the Eastern Railway Company. In consequence of a subsequent agreement entered into in September, 1909, between the Porte and the company, the latter is to receive a lump sum of nineteen million francs. It is to receive from the Bulgarian Government an additional indemnity which Article 7 of the protocol of Constantinople declares in the following terms:

Bulgaria's immediate debts to the Eastern Railway Company, resulting from the confiscation of operating stock and material seized, etc.. * * * together with the operating indemnity beginning Sept. 9/22, 1908, for the railway lines occupied until the time of the adjustment of the portion due said company of the 40 million francs specified in Article 3 of the St. Petersburg protocol, shall be mutually agreed upon between the Bulgarian Government and the company.

There is no need of commenting upon this article: the Bulgarian Government acknowledges itself as directly indebted to the company

for railway receipts collected and for material losses sustained by the company, resulting from dispossession, from the date of said dispossession to the time of the Turko-Bulgarian protocol.17

GEORGES SCELLE.

17 Under the terms of this article, a detailed accounting system has been kept by the two parties, and in consequence of laborious negotiations an agreement was reached, signed and presented to the Sabranjé. It bears date of June 13/26, 1909, and is signed by Mr. Liapscheff, Secretary of Commerce, and by Mr. Ulrich Gross, director of the Eastern Railway Operating Company.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

RETALIATION IN WAR *

We presume that many of our readers have noticed the recent debate in the Congress of the United States on the subject of retaliation upon rebel prisoners of war in our hands for the treatment ours have received from the rebel authorities; and we think not a few must have been surprised at the course of that discussion. That opinions on this subject should differ is very natural; but so very wide a difference, or rather a direct conflict of opinion, on fundamental principles, would suggest that either the law itself was unsettled, or that the speakers did not well understand it. Indeed, on these questions of the laws and usages of war there is great want of information, not only among our people generally, but among our legislators, courts, lawyers, military officers and other public men. Nor is this to be wondered at. Prior to the present war, the people of the United States made no claim to be a military people; on the contrary they prided themselves as being civil in the strict sense of that word, and disclaimed and discountenanced all knowledge of the military art, or acquaintance with the science of war. Indeed, a profound peace of more than three-quarters of a century could scarcely be said to be interrupted by the insignificant contest of 1812,

* The foregoing paper, like those which have preceded it, was found among the papers of Major-General Halleck at his death, which occurred at Louisville, Kentucky, on January 9, 1872. The article is in the General's handwriting and was prepared, probably during the year 1864, when the question of the treatment of prisoners of war was undergoing serious discussion, not only in Congress but in the public press. The paper has considerable value as expressing the views of one of the ablest international lawyers of his time in respect to the extent of the power of a government to resort to acts of retaliation in time of public war with a view to coerce the enemy into obedience to the accepted rules and usages of war.-G. B. DAVIS.

It should be remembered that General Halleck's Article was written during the Civil War. If the life of the learned author had been prolonged and had the article been written at the present day, the language would, no doubt, have been more measured and restrained. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.

« PreviousContinue »