p i s t r i b ü t e d t0 the C 0 u n c i1 C. 4 4 4 (a) M. 1 6 4 (a). 1 9 2 5 . V III .and the Members of the League.] v ' —

G e n e v a , August 20th, 1 9 2 5 .

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

REPORT

ON

DANUBE NAVIGATION

SUBMITTED TO THE

ADVISORY AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSIT

OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

BY

WALKER D. HINES

(with the aid of Major Brehon Somervell)

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S .

Par t 1.P a g e

I I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1

II, P a s t a n d P r e s e n t U t i l i s a t i o n o f t h e R i v e r .......................................................................................................... 1 1

Freight traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1

Total for 1911, 1923, 1924.Increase expected in 1925.Exports, imports and internal traffic of riparian States.Traffic b y flag, 1923 and 1924.Comparison w ith traffic on Rhine

Passenger traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 1 4

I I I . T h e R i v e r F l e e t s , t h e i r N a t i o n a l i t y a n d C a p a c i t y ................................................................................ 1 5

Pre-war situation.Present situation.

Changes brought about by the war.Present Danube Fleet by flag.Introduction of self-propelled barges.Greater division of shipping interests.Co-operation among navigation companies.

IV. S c h e m e o f A n a l y s i s ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 6

V. T h e G e n e r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f D a n u b e T r a f f i c ........................................................................................... 1 7

Maritime Danube.Fluvial Danube.

VI. G e n e r a l E c o n o m i c C o n d i t i o n s g r o w i n g o u t o f P o s t - W a r P o l i c i e s .......................................... 1 8

General depression in Europe.Export and import prohibitions.Effect of the break-up of Austria-Hungary.Protectionist policy of new States.Commercial Treaties.Competition of other trade routes.Sea routes.Railways.

VII. R o u m a n i a n P r o d u c t i o n o f C e r e a l s f o r E x p o r t ..................................................................... 19

Decrease in 1924 in Danube traffic originating in Roumania concurrently with increase in other Danube traffic.

Importance of Roumania in total Danube traffic.Comparisons of Roumanian pre-war and post-war production and export of cereals. Reasons for decrease in exports :

Increase in internal consumption.Division of large estates.Price control and export taxes.Crop prospects for 1925.

Only important increase is in lumber.

s ' d- N. 250 (F.) + 200 (A.) 9/25 + 3000 (A.), 3000 (F.) 10/25. Imp. Réunies S. A., Lausanne.

— 4 —

PageVIII. T h e T e r r i t o r i a l W a t e r s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e S . H . S . S t a t e .............................................................. 21

The S a v e .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Volume of traffic.

The Bega R iver and the Canals ........................................................................................................... 22

(1) The King Peter Canal.(2) The Prince Alexander Canal.(3) The Bega River.V olume of traffic.Provisions of Peace Treaties regarding th e international character of the Bega.

The question of according, w ithout prejudice to the principle, access to territorialwaters in cases where the S tates’ interest wrould be promoted ............................... 23

Claim of S .H .S. State that exclusive domestic enjoym ent is necessary to develop dom estic shipping.

Claim of foreign navigation companies th a t S.H.S. dom estic service is at times inadequate.

The practical situation as to the Roum anian part of the Bega ...................................... 23

Traffic perm its granted b y Roum anian Government to foreign companies.In reaching R oum anian part, companies m ust use S.H .S. tugs through latter’s

territory.

IX. T h e R i g h t o f a S t a t e t o e x c l u d e a b s o l u t e l y a l l F o r e i g n I n t e r e s t s f r o m i t sC a b o t a g e o r s t r i c t l y I n t e r n a l T r a f f i c .............................................................................................. 24

The question of principle ..................................................................................................................... 24

The claim of Roum ania and the S .H .S. State that th ey are perm itted to forbid cabotage.

Complaints of foreign shipping com panies regarding their total exclusion from cabotage in Roum ania and S.H.S. State.

Interpretation of relevant clauses of Danube Statute lies with C.I.D.

The question of perm itting, w ithout prejudice to the principle, participation incabotage if advantageous to the S t a t e .............................................................................. 25

(1) Injury to domestic shipping.(2) Promotion of public convenience.Infrequency of passenger services between Roumanian ports and between

S.H.S. ports because of their cabotage policy.Advantages of perm itting limited cabotage.

Refusal to permit transportation of foreign companies’ own employees or supplies 27

X. T h e R i v e r ’s P h y s i c a l P r o b l e m s ....................................................................... 27

Detailed developm ent in Annex V.Usual draught of vessels on Danube.General situation compared with pre-war.Controlling depths at a few critical points.

Ratisbon to Vienna .............................................................................................................................. 27

Rhine-Danube Canal.Passau-Hofkirchen.Hofkirchen-Ratisbon.Passau to Vienna hydro-electric possibilities.

Vienna to Budapest ...................... ... 27

Devin-Szap.Austrian-Czech frontier Hungarian-Czech frontier.

Budapest to Moldava .............................................................................................................................. '

Fajz.Mouth of Tisza.

— 5 —

PageIron Gates S e c t io n ........................................................................................................... 29

N eeds for im provem ent.Plans for im provem ent.Possibilities of execution of new projects.Adm inistration of Services.S .H .S. Roum anian accord.Principles to be followed in forming service at Iron Gates.Dues com plaint b y S.H .S. Syndicate.“ Vaskapu. ”

Sulina Channel............................................................................................................................................... 32D evelopm ent of tributaries as feeders to traffic on main river .......................................... 32The General Principle of Dues on Danube Navigation ........................................................... 32Comprehensive plan for im provem ent................................................................................................. 33

Responsibility of C.I.D.Technical department of C.I.D. not organised.Necessity for prompt action.

XI. F r o n t i e r F o r m a l i t i e s ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Effect of the increase in the number of frontiers.Summary of formalities for a loaded barge proceeding from Germany to Roumania.

Ratisbon, Passau and Vienna.Czechoslovakia.H ungary — entrance and exit.S.H .S. State — entrance and exit.Roumanian frontier.

Formalities for cargo m oving upstream ........................................................... 35Germany gives option of paying duty at frontier .................................................................... 35Transit traffic ...................................................................................................................................... 36

Principles established by Danube Statute.Present practice regarding formalities.

Time lost and resulting economic waste ....................................................................................... 36

Approxim ate total delays.Possibility of improving the position.

Engelhartszell complaint already remedied .............................................................................. 36The stop of all tows in Bratislava ................................................................................................ 37

Possibility of substituting bonds or other alternative.The stop at Budapest ............................................................................................................................. 37

Conflict in reports from Hungarian authorities and navigation companies.

The double stop at the Hungarian-S.H.S. f r o n t ie r ..................................................................... 37

No objection in principle to combining the two frontier offices.Suggestion that Batina should be selected.

Frontier delays increased by attitude of local functionaries .................................................. 38Extra fees for services outside office hours....................................................................................... 38

Disadvantage as compared with rail traffic.

German duties on certain ships’ supplies ....................................................................................... 38The convoy sy stem ....................................................................................................................................... 39

Considerable burden.Suggestion for substituting bonds and occasional inspections.Present system unsatisfactoryNo Roum anian Customs formalities at Tutrakan.

Simplification of D ocum ents................................................................................................................... 39

Suggestion for uniform manifest.Reasonable simplification is in the interest of all the States concerned.

Delay in Customs examinations in ports ....................................................................................... 39

Difficulties caused by insufficient number of Customs houses.Suggestions for ensuring prompter clearance.

— 6 —

XII.

X III .

X IV .

XV.

Passport Formalities ............................................................................................................................. 4qSubstitution of crew’s service books for passports.Alleged exam ination of crewr’s papers at Budapest.A dvisability of general agreement.

Sanitary Formalities ............................................................................................................................. 40

Desirability of co-ordinating the existing regulations.

Frontier Formalities would not be avoided b y creating free p o r t s ................................ 4 ^

P o r t F a c i l i t i e s ............................................................................................................................................................................. 41

Principle of equality of all flags under the Danube Statute.Various com plaints of unequal treatm ent.

Situation in various countries :

G e r m a n y ................................................................................................................................................. 42

Ratisbon.Passau.

Austria ................................................................................................................................................. 42

Linz.Vienna.

Czechoslovakia....................................................................................................................................... 43

Bratislava.

H u n g a r y ................................................................................................................................................ 44

Budapest.

S.H .S. S tate ........................................ 45

Ports operated b y the State.Inadequate developm ent of facilities.Exclusion of foreign agents of navigation companies.The claim that Belgrade is a territorial and not an international port.Pancsova.

R oum ania ................................................................................................................................................. 48Ports operated b y the State.Limited facilities of foreign companies Brail a and Galatz.

Bulgaria .............

Port Dues

L i e n s o n V e s s e l s . . .

48

49

49

N o satisfactory legislation regarding liens.A dvisability of a Convention to bring about uniform law.

S t a t i s t i c s ........................................................................................................ 50

N ecessity of more com plete and uniform statistics on physical conditions and on traffic.A dvantages to States.A dvantages to shipping companies.

Statistics of C.I.D. and C.E.D.

I n t e r n a t i o n a l D a n u b e C o m m i s s i o n ( C . I . D . ) 51

Peace Treaties and Danube Statute.Outline of Commission’s responsibility ........................................................................................ 51

Obligations under the Danube Statute.

Difficulties confronting the Commission, and its important accomplishments ............ 52

Difficulties encountered.Sum m ary of im portant services rendered.

PageComments upon postponem ents of a c t i o n ................................................................................. 53

Some questions not disposed of by Commission.Difficulty in arriving at decisions.Analysis of questions decided and postponed.Question of holding more frequent sessions.N ecessity of preparing more complete information in advance of sessions.

XVI. E u r o p e a n D a n u b e C o m m i s s i o n (C.E.D.) 5 5

Functions of Commission.Works of channel improvement .......................................................................................................... 5 5

Summary of conditions affecting the channel at Sulina.Question as to whether decline in traffic is due to shallow water or to other

reasons.

D u e s ................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Question whether decline in traffic caused by dues or other reasons.

Criticism directed against the Commission .............................................................................. 5 7

XVII. R a i l w a y C o - o p e r a t i o n ........................................................................................................................... 58

R ailw ays disposed to co-operate with each other but not with the Danube.A dvantages of co-operation with Danube.Exam ples of special railway rates.

XVIII. E f f i c i e n c y o f N a v i g a t i o n o n t h e D a n u b e ..................................................................................... 59

More efficient loading of barges and more complete tows for tugs.......................................... 59Analogy with railways.Incomplete utilisation represents waste.Elimination of delay for tugs and tows.Time lost by slow loading and unloading.

Question as to efficient functioning of many of existing t u g s ................................................. 61Question of replacing old tugs.

Special telegraphic communication for navigation ............. 61Greater co-operation among navigation c o m p a n ie s .................................................................... 61Common use of facilities in ports......................................................................................................... 62Common use of tug-boats .................................................................................................................. 62Common use of repair s h o p s .................................................................................................................. 62Building up tourist passenger travel ................................................................................................ 62

X IX. T h e G e n e r a l F i n a n c i a l C r e d i t o f t h e D a n u b e S t a t e s .................................................................... 63

Danube a symbol of conditions in States.A bility to borrow impaired if disturbed Danube relations.

Part 2.A n n e x I Map of D a n u b e .......................................................... ...................... (Plate)A n n e x II Traffic S tatistics..................................................................... ......................................... 6 9

A n n e x III River Fleets .................................................................... ........................................ 8 7

A n n e x IV Shipyards .............................................................................. ........................................ 1 1 2

Part 3.A n n e x V W aterway .............................................................................. .......................... 1 1 7

A n n e x VI Customs, Police, etc., D ues............................................... .......................... 1 6 3

A n n e x VII Delays at F r o n t ie r s ........................................................... ......................................... 1 6 6

A n n e x VIII D elays in Operating Vessels............................................ ......................................... 1 7 0

A n n e x IX International Danube Comm ission............................... ........................................ 1 7 4

A n n e x X Summary of R e p o r t ....................................... . ............. ......................................... 1 8 3

PART 1.

T H E REPORT.

I.

INTRODUCTION.

The Genoa Conference, held in May 1920, decided th a t enquiries should be undertaken from time to time into the sta te of communications and means of transport in Europe, and, by a resolution subsequently accepted by the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations, entrusted to the com petent organisations of the League the task of examining from time to time the progress achieved in carrying th is work into effect. The League’s Advisory and Tech­nical Committee for Communications and Transit therefore requested me to make an enquiry into the present position of inland navigation in Europe, with particular reference to the Rhine and the Danube, from the technical and, more particularly, from the commercial and admi­nistrative point of view.

In undertaking th is work, I was fortunate enough to secure the assistance of Major Brehon Somervell, of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. He secured leave of absence from his duties in the Army, and has devoted five months continuously to the detailed study of the problems arising in th is enquiry.

As a m atte r of convenience, this report is confined to the Danube. A separate report is submitted as to the Rhine.

In March, April, May and June, Major Somervell made visits to all of the Danube countries, inspected the Danube from Ratisbon to Sulina, and familiarised himself with the technical, commercial and adm inistrative problems involved, conferring a t length with representatives of the various Governments and shipping interests.

In the la tte r p a rt of June and in Ju ly I visited, in company with Major Somervell, all of the Danube countries, and made a trip on the Danube from Vienna to Sulina and return, con­ferring with governmental, commercial and shipping interests.

All these interests have m ade special efforts to submit the information called for and have expressed m ost cordial and sym pathetic interest in the purposes of the enquiry.

At the outset, I wish to say th a t the general conditions of Danube navigation, as well as of the Danube countries, appear to have made marked and favourable progress since 1920 and 1921, in both of which years I m ade extended trips on the Danube in connection with my work as A rbitra tor of Questions of R iver Shipping under the Peace Treaties.

There is a ttached hereto as Annex I a map of the Danube and the riparian States.For the convenience of those not having time to study the report in detail, a summary

is attached, as Annex X, stating briefly the general effect of the report’s treatm ent of most of the im portant topics.

II.

PAST AND PRESENT UTILISATION OF THE RIVER.

Freight Traffic.

No complete statistics of Danube traffic have ever been kept and comparison of post-war and pre-war traffic is extrem ely difficult.

However, the principal navigation companies have submitted information showing the freight traffic carried by them for certain years within the period from 1911 to 1924. While

— 12 —

the information thus obtained is no t in all respects complete and discloses various discrepancies useful estimates are deducible for the years 1923 and 1924.

The various Governments also furnished traffic information pursuan t to such requests bu t the figures of the Governments, not being in agreement as to the traffic interchanged between their countries, could not be combined into a general statem ent. These divergencies were doubtless due partly to the employm ent of different theories in compilation, and partly to the absence of any plan for perm anent and comprehensive Danube statistics in most of the countries.

In the A rbitration under the Peace Treaties in respect of questions arising as to Danube shipping1, an agreed estim ate was obtained of the normal annual pre-war freight traffic for use in determining the legitim ate needs of the respective Danube countries for tugs and barges. In several of the pre-war years the traffic had been subjected to abnorm al influences, parti­cularly wars in Eastern Europe, so th a t i t was agreed th a t the traffic for the year 1911 might be accepted as th e normal basis of pre-war traffic, and the agreed estim ate was for th a t year. The traffic for 1911 was sta ted w ith reference to the post-war boundaries of the present countries.

The figures arrived a t, as above stated, for 1911, 1923 and 1924 respectively are shownin detail in Table 1 of Annex II, the to ta ls (which, however, are only approximations) beingas follows :

1911 .................................................................. 6,802,639 tons.1923 .................................................................. 3,923,919 »1924 .................................................................. 3,757,010 »

The freight traffic for the first half of 1925 has greatly increased and is about 150 percent of the traffic for the corresponding half of 1924. This is derived from information obtained from the principal navigation companies 2 indicating th a t their freight business for th e first six m onths of 1925 was the following percentage of their business for the first six m onths of 1924 :

Per cent

B avarian Lloyd (on basis of to n -k i lo m e te rs ) .........................................118- - - - ) 126

) .........................................158) .........................................164) ........................................ 230

D. D. S. G. (Czechoslovak Co. (M. F. T. R. (S. H. S. Syndicate (N. F. R. (on basis of to n s) .......................................................... 94

The principal explanation of th is satisfactory situation is th a t there has been in the first half of 1925 a very large Danube m ovem ent of maize from the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (which will hereinafter be referred to as the S. H. S. State) to Braila and Galatz for export overseas — largely to English and N orth Sea ports. Most of the shipping interests on the Danube appear to have participated in this movement, except the Greek interests, whose barges generally have a draugh t too great to carry traffic advantageously above the Iron Gates.

F u rth e r analysis shows th a t according to Table I, Annex 11, the exports, imports and internal traffic of th e respective riparian States were as follows :

Germany :E x p o r t .....................................................I m p o r t .....................................................In ternal ................................................

T o t a l ...................................

1911 1923 1924

Tons Tons Tons

128,233 330,854 223,450246,415 175,184 119,993

16,000 4,124 8,936

390,648 510,162 352,379

1 The w riter was the Arbitrator. His determination of these questions bears date August 2nd, 1921.2 The description of the navigation companies here referred to will be found in A nnex II I referred to below.

— 13 —

1911 J923 1924

Austria : Tons Tons Tons

E x p o r t .......................................................... 537,000 163,294 155,251Import . . . ..................................... 982,000 505,911 579,635I n t e r n a l ...................................................... 204,000 42,692 58,504

T o t a l ................................... 1,723,000 711,897 793,390

Hungary :

E x p o r t .................................................... 945,000 254,855 325,152I m p o r t ..................................................... 1,090,000 319,218 332,551Internal ................................................. 377,000 225,618 147,718

T o t a l ................................... 2,413,000 799,691 805,421

Czechoslovakia :

E x p o r t ..................................................... 91,000 117,341 117,815I m p o r t ..................................................... 85,060 45,549 257,761I n t e r n a l ................................................ 6,000 7,607 13,193

T o t a l ................................... 182,060 170,497 388,769

S. H. S. Stale :

E x p o r t .................................................... 1,261,000 192,841 353,296I m p o r t ..................................................... 528,164 225,663 220,360Internal ....................................... 500,000 968,753 1,016,183

T o t a l ................................... 2,289,164 1,387,257 1,589,839

Bulgaria :

E x p o r t ..................................................... 376,579 82,938 87,112I m p o r t ..................................................... 242,000 126,833 164,946Internal ........................................... 27,000 27,308 37,757

T o t a l ................................... 645,579 237,079 289,815

Roumania :

E x p o r t ..................................................... 384,827 360,098 565,036I m p o r t ..................................................... 550,000 103,866 152,866Internal ............................................ 1,948,000 1,145,593 647,607

T o t a l ................................... 2,882,827 1,609,557 1,365,509

Tables 2 and 3, Annex II, fu rther analyse this information for 1923 and 1924 and show the traffic carried by vessels under th e flags of the various interested countries. These tables show, among other things, the to ta l tons carried under the various flags in 1923 and 1924,as follows :

— 14

Traffic Carried under Various Flags.1923 1924Tons Tons

G e r m a n ..........................................................................• 212,970 219,235A u s t r i a n .......................................................................... 700,870 825,196Czechoslovak ............................................................. 106.092 109,412H u n g a r ia n ...................................................................... 416,319 469,876S. H. S............................................................................. 1,156,773 1,283,557Roumanian (N. F. R. and S. R. D . ) .................. 481,259 399,479B u l g a r i a n ...................................................................... (No figures) (No figures)Flags not specified above carrying Roumanian

internal traffic (Roumanian, French and Greek) 849,636 450,255

3,923,919 3,757,010

The Danube has never had a traffic development approaching th a t enjoyed by the Rhine. Although the navigable length of the Danube is 2,380 kins., and th a t of the Rhine only 828 kms., yet the normal pre-war traffic on the Rhine was approximately 57,500,000 tons, while the normal pre-war traffic on the Danube was approxim ately 6,800,000 tons.

The information as to the Rhine, shown in Table 4 of Annex II hereto, is taken from Table I of Appendix I of the A rb itra to r’s Determination, bearing date January 8th, 1921, in the matter of the cessions by Germany to France under Article 357 of the T reaty of Versailles. This Table shows the traffic for the year 1913 which the two Governments agreed, in the arbitration proceedings referred to , was a normal pre-war year.

The very wide disparity between the traffic of the two rivers is largely accounted for by the enormous Rhine traffic in coal from the R uhr and in ore to the Ruhr. There is, of course, no similar traffic of correspondingly relative importance on the Danube. It is also true that the territo ry served by the Danube does not in general have the intense industrial develop­m ent which is characteristic of the territo ry served by the Rhine.

Passenger Traffic.

D ata are not available to give an accurate comparison between the am ount of passenger traffic before and after the war, but a comparison can be made showing the pre-war and post­war services provided by the larger navigation companies. This information covers practically the entire service, except th a t m aintained as a very local or ferry business, and is shown on the chart and in tables in Annex II. From these it appears there is not, and has not been, any passenger service on the German Danube ; in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary the services are greater now than before the war ; in the S. H . S. State, the service is materially less than in pre-war times ; and in Roum ania the service is very much less than before the war ; in Bulgaria there is one more service per week between Vidin and R ustchuk th an there was before the war. It will be noted th a t from Mohacs to Giurgiu there are two services per week of the Austrian company which are not allowed to carry passengers between S. H. S. ports or between Roumanian ports ; and that between Vidin and Rustchuk there are eight services per week of the Austrian and Hungarian companies between Bulgarian ports, which are not allowed to carry passengers between Roum anian ports. In this section there is only one service weekly in each direction between Roumanian ports.

Annex II contains also certain other tables giving information as to freight traffic and passenger traffic ; this information, although incomplete, nevertheless appears to be worth preserving.

— 15 —

III.

THE RIV ER FLEETS. THEIR NATIONALITY AND CAPACITY.

Before the w ar Danube transporta tion was largely in the hands of the Austrian and H un­garian companies. At th a t tim e the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy extended from Passau for a distance of 1,272 kilometers along the Danube to a point below Orsova. Roumanian and Greek interests carried a very im portan t trafiic below the Iron Gates. Serbian partici­pation in navigation was comparatively small and Bulgaria has never had an im portant part in Danube navigation. The Bavarian Lloyd was organised just before the war and the Siid- Deutsche, although under the German flag, was owned by the Austrian Government.

The changes brought about by the war have been far-reaching. The A ustrian and H un ­garian interests lost large amounts of shipping to Roum ania and the S. H. S. State and also to France as a result of seizures, and to Czechoslovakia as a result of repartition under the Peace Treaties. The Roum anian shipping interests have greatly increased. Before the war Serbia had a very small tleet, but now the S. H . S. Syndicate owns the largest tonnage on the river. An im portant Czechoslovak navigation concern has come into existence ; there are also new’ French and D utch companies, and the German company, the Bavarian Lloyd, has grown substantially since the war.

Annex I I I hereto a ttached shows a list of w hat is understood to be approxim ately the s ta tus of shipping on the Danube, in point of ownership, nationality and capacity, and m ay be sum­marised as to flags and capacity as follows :

Passenger Tugs, CapacityFlag steamers, H.P. oi Barges

H.P. and Tanks.Tons

G e r m a n ........................................... None 25,000 215,265A u s t r i a n ........................................... 18,040 25,170 265,725C zechoslovak ................................... 738 5,987 82,544H u n g a r ia n ....................................... 11,574 18,159 169,163S. H. S ............................................... 9,760 34,243 475,679Roumanian ................................... 7,750 26,215 449,863B u l g a r i a n ....................................... None 1,440 13,772French ........................................... None 8,970 70,976I ta l ia n ................................................ None 650 13,950D u t c h ................................................ None 700 7,624E n g l i s h ............................................ None 150 5,025B e l g i a n ........................................... None 900 6,725Greek ............................................ None 6,720 168,485

Annex I I I also shows in a series of tables detailed information in respect of the principal navigation concerns operating on the Danube, as to their corporate structure and proprietorship, as to the size and character of their respective fleets and as to their agencies and their landing facilities. Greek interests own and operate extensive tonnage on the Danube below the Iron Gates, but the holdings are scattered among m any owners, generally individuals. Numerous Greek owners have only barges and employ the tugs of others (generally also Greek) to perform the towing service.

An interesting and promising recent development has been the use of self-propelled barges, which maintain regular services and seem specially adapted for carrying less-than-cargo lots and also crude oil and its derivatives.

The post-war distribution of shipping is such th a t the Danube traffic is now divided among a considerably greater num ber of im portan t shipping interests than was the case before the war, each with its separate organisation, facilities in the important ports where it does business and agencies in these ports. In adm inistration and operation there is consequently much duplication of effort.

— 16

I t is also true th a t the utilisation of the Danube has taken on a much more international aspect than formerly. Before the war, Austrian and Hungarian concerns were the principal factors, with Roum anian and Greek interests carrying im portant traffic below the Iron Gates. Now we have as im portant factors A ustrian and Hungarian concerns (with substantialBritisli interests therein), German, Czechoslovak, S. H. S., Roum anian, Greek, French and Dutch and all of them except the Greek concerns seem to be active above, as well as below, the Iron Gates.

Annex IV hereto a ttached shows the facilities along the Danube for construction and repair of boats.

The to ta l Danube fleet is about 25 per cent larger than in 1911 and the port facilities and shop facilities are either the same as or more than before the w ar (except perhaps as to pontons). B u t the Danube traffic has diminished in a very substantial proportion. These considerations emphasise the importance of availing of every opportunity to utilise the existing m aterial to the best advantage and to avoid waste of capital and labour.

There are now the following im portan t evidences of co-operation :The companies in the S. H. S. S tate and in the countries further up the river have formed

a “ cartel ” , which has adopted a set of uniform rates and have agreed to furnish mutual assis­tance in a very limited field. The Bavarian Lloyd and the Czechoslovak Company, it is under­stood, have a m uch more intim ate connection. In addition to jointly operating self-propelled barges, their agreement includes a general reciprocal use of tug-boats and the jo in t use of certain port facilities.

There is no agreement as to uniform rates th a t includes the navigation concerns whose boats are registered in Roum ania. An a ttem p t to form among them such a cartel has not yet m et with success. It is understood, however, th a t a definite agreement has been reached among those concerns (but not including the Roum anian S tate concern) for the division of the downstream traffic in R oum ania’s cereals which are destined for export overseas. Accord­ing to this agreement, each company is supposed to participate in the traffic in the ratio of its to ta l tonnage to the combined tonnage of all the companies.

IV.

SCHEME OF ANALYSIS.

There are m any causes contributing to the falling off in Danube traffic since the war. I t is im portan t to analyse these causes a t least into general classes, so as to give due effect to each, and so as to avoid a ttribu ting to some particular cause an effect really attributable to some entirely distinct sort of cause. As a m atter of convenience these causes may be classified for purposes of this discussion as follows :

(1) A great deal of the diminution in traffic is due to the economic depression growing out of the post-war conditions. The influence of this economic depression would only gradually disappear, even if all other interferences with navigation were removed. One of its elements deserving special mention is th a t the post-war developments appear to have reduced very considerably the am ount of cereals produced in Roumania and available for export — a matter of great importance to Danube traffic.

(2) Separate a ttention should be given to the new post-war practices in Roumania and the S. H. S. State whereby each of these States excludes foreign shipping from certain “ territorial waters ” which are tributaries of the Danube, and also from engaging in “ cabotage ” or strictly internal traffic on the Danube. These practices operate to shift to Roumanian and S. H . S. navigation concerns im portant traffic which, before the war, was largely carried by the Austrian and Hunagarian interests. B ut it is also claimed th a t the new practices discourage Danube navigation as a whole and diminish the aggregate traffic on the river.

— 17 —

(3) B ut aside from the above-mentioned factors, there are numerous conditions which, it is claimed, interfere with Danube navigation and discourage and diminish Danube traffic.

Consideration of these claims involves :

( a) Exam ination of the physical condition of the river channel, and of what should be done for its improvement ;

( b) Consideration of the formalities imposed directly and indirectly upon oanube traffic a t the numerous frontiers and elsewhere ;

( c) Consideration of the facilities afforded and practices applied in the various ports ;

(d) Reference to the railway policies of the various States from the standpoint of the effect upon Danube traffic ;

(e) Consideration of the question whether the navigation companies can put themselves in a be tter position to retain and build up Danube traffic by finding addi­tional ways of increasing their own efficiency or by co-operating more closely with each other to avoid waste of capital or labour, and to promote economy and to a ttrac t new sorts of traffic.

In addition, a few other related topics will call for consideration.Before referring to general economic conditions, it is desirable to mention the general

characteristics of Danube traffic.

V.

THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DANUBE TRAFFIC.

Braila and Galatz, respectively 171 kms. and 150 kms. from Sulina, the mouth of the river, are the usual points of transfer between sea-going steamers and the Danube barges. A t times, though not so much as before the war, river barges go down to Sulina for transhipm ent to or from ocean vessels. The portion of the Danube below Braila is known as the maritime Danube. The traffic carried is for import and export overseas. Outbound it consists largely of cereals and other agricultural products from Roumania, Bulgaria, and a t times from the S. H. S. State, and of lumber and petroleum and its derivatives from Roumania. The inbound traffic consists largely of manufactured articles and miscellaneous merchandise brought by sea from western Europe and destined for Roumania and Bulgaria, and also to some extent of English coal and of petroleum from Russia. In addition to the transhipments to and from river-boats, the sea-going ships, a t Braila and Galatz, receive from and deliver to the railways a substantial tonnage.

The Danube above Braila and Galatz is known as the fluvial Danube. Much of the sur­plus cereals and other agricultural products in Roumania and Bulgaria move down the Danube to Braila and Galatz for exportation, and the same is true a t times of considerable traffic from the S. H. S. State, notably in the past few months as to maize. Ordinarily also the cereals and other agricultural products of Hungary and the S. H. S. State, as well as a portion of the same products of Roumania and Bulgaria, move upstream to supply the demand in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. The downstream traffic nor­mally consists largely of m anufactured articles made in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia and, to some extent, in Hungary. Of course, there are m any other sorts of traffic of substantial importance ; large quantities of wood are moving on certain parts of the river, and there is some coal coming from Upper Silesia and also from mines on the river.

At present, as well as in the past, the principal Danube traffic consists of agricultural pro­ducts. When there are good crops in the Danube countries, there is a good traffic on the Danube, both in handling these crops and in handling the general business, which is good when the crops are good. The reverse is the case when crops are poor.

— 18 —

VI.

GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS GROWING OUT OF POST WAR POLICIES.

To a large ex ten t the post-war diminution in Danube traffc is due to the post-war dimi­nution in production and commerce which has characterised most, if not all, of Euorpe. The general impairm ent of purchasing power on the part of the populations of Europe, the scar­city of capital for industry and commerce, the extraordinarily heavy expenditures which the States were compelled to incur, the extremely heavy taxation, the delay in getting State bud­gets balanced, the grave business uncertainty due to pronounced fluctuations in the currencies of Europe, have operated in the Danube countries, as elsewhere, to discourage production and commerce. The same m ay be said of those kindred phenomena, the import and export prohibitions of some of the European States seeking to meet the domestic crises which grew out of the chaotic conditions following the war. Happily, these import and export prohibitions are being progressively removed.

But, in addition to these influences which have been so widespread in Europe, the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has introduced economic problems especially acute for the Danube countries. Before the war all the different parts of the country along the Danube from Passau to a point below Orsova enjoyed with each other a condition of substantial free­dom of trade. Industries developed in advantageous localities, relying upon the fact that over a wide extent of Central Europe raw materials could be obtained and finished products could be distributed w ithout crossing any frontier. For example, this was true of the varied industries in w hat is now Czechoslovakia. I t was true of the flour-mills a t Budapest, which had became the second flour-mill city in the world, having an enormous ex ten t of cereal acreage from which to draw and a wide range of customers to supply without crossing any frontiers. The cutting up of th is single Customs tariff area so th a t i t is now divided among seven different States, each politically independent of the other and desiring to be economically and industrially independent of all the world, has fundamentally changed the economic situation. Raw mate­rials are separated from the former factories, which in turn are separated from their former customers. Of practically all of these States it m ay be said th a t each is trying to exclude other countries from its home m arket so as to preserve its existing industries and to build up new ones to supply its inhabitants to the extent th a t they have heretofore drawn their supplies from industries beyond the present boundaries. For example, Hungary is developing textile mills to supply its inhabitants, who formerly patronised the textile mills which are now in Czechoslovakia and Austria. The result is th a t a condition of very high protective tariffs (being somewrhat m itigated from time to time in special directions by commercial treaties) has developed in this vast area where free trade prevailed before the war. For the time being, this new condition is seriously affecting the volume of traffic. Of course, much traffic continues to move because the new policy of protectionism cannot instantly substitute local production for foreign production. W hat the future result of the policy will be it is impossible to tell. For the time being, however, and even in advance of complete effect being given to the policies of excluding foreign products, those policies appear to be one of the im portant causes operating against the reappearance on the Danube up to the present of the volume of traffic it enjoyed before the war.

No doubt these highly protectionist policies will be affected substantially by the commercial treaties. Such treaties m ay in themselves effect a substantial diversion of transport traffic from one transportation route to another. For example, it is represented th a t commercial treaties which have been negotiated by Austria and Czechoslovakia with Italy and Spain have resulted in Italian and Spanish wines partly replacing Hungarian wines in Austria and Czecho­slovakia, thus affecting adversely an item of Danube traffic.

The effect of commercial treaties among the Danube States should have a favourable influence in increasing commercial intercourse among them and consequently in increasing Danube traffic. Although negotiation of numerous commercial treaties between Danube countries is in progress, comparatively few have been completed and put into effect. The

— 19 —

prompt conclusion and application of these commercial treaties on the part of the Danube c o u n t r i e s will, it is believed, greatly promote Danube navigation.

There is another economic factor of most elusive character which has, and is likely to have, a continuing importance with respect to the Danube traffic. That factor is the competition of o ther trade routes.

It is generally believed th a t one of the results of the war has been to give industries in western and northern Europe a better opportunity to compete w ith industries in central Europe for the trade of eastern Europe. To whatever extent this is the case, it is an influence adverse to the Danube, because traffic from eastern and northern Europe will move by sea, whereas traffic from central Europe could and did move, at least in substantial part, by the Danube. Again, the extremely low rates of ocean transportation seem to be having, and to be likely to continue to have, im portant influences on Danube traffic. For example, this condition may give cereals arriving through North Sea ports such advantages as to exclude grain coming by the Danube from portions of Germany hitherto supplied by such Danube grain. Again, the extremely low ocean rates from Braila and Galatz to North Sea ports appear to have the effect of bringing about a movement of cereals downstream to Braila and Galatz for ocean transport, whereas such cereals would normally move up the Danube. This has been particularly true during the last three or four months in the case of S. H. S. maize. W hen we consider th a t the downstream movement of cereals on the Danube is less costly than the upstream movement, it m ay well be th a t there will be a pronounced tendency towards a greater downstream movement of Danube cereals in the future than there has been in the past. The movement downstream to Braila and Galatz for export has always been the normal movement for the great bulk of Roumanian cereals which have been exported.

Again, rail competition, or rail-water competition, m ay have an increasing adverse effect upon Danube traffic. I t is understood th a t Czechoslovakia and Italy, acting in conjunction with the other States interested in the railway from Czechoslovakia to Trieste, have pu t into effect extremely low rates calculated to encourage the movement of traffic via Trieste which would otherwise move via the Danube. I t is understood that, prior to the war, in some of the States, notably in Hungary, the railway policy definitely sought to take away traffic from the Danube. W hat the policy of H ungary and other States will be in this direction in the future remains to be seen. I t is evident, however, th a t Danube navigation may suffer substantial injury from railway competition. In any particular Danube State there is danger th a t the railways will receive more sym pathetic consideration than will the transportation on the Danube, as the railways are S tate owned and operated.

As will be pointed out more fully below, the establishment of rail-Danube through freight tariffs and provision for through rail-Danube bills of lading are very greatly in the interest of Danube navigation and, it is believed, in the interest of the various Danube countries.

VII.

ROUMANIAN PRODUCTION OF CEREALS FOR EXPORT.

The correct view' seems to be th a t the countries of Central Europe are gradually overcoming the handicaps growing out of the war. This view is sustained by the figures given in Annex II. These figures indicate th a t , except Roumania, the Danube traffic originating in the riparian States other than Roumania, and shipped either to another port in the country of origin or to another Danube country, wras, in the aggregate, about 10 per cent greater in 1924 than in 1923, and hence th a t m uch nearer the normal pre-w'ar traffic. On the other hand, Danube traffic originating in Roum ania and either shipped to another port in th a t State or to some other riparian State was nearly 20 per cent less in 1924 than in 1923. This condition has converted into a loss, as compared with 1923, what would otherwise have been a substantial gain in Danube traffic as a whole.

— 20 —

The situation of Roum ania, in its effect upon Danube traffic, therefore justifies special comment. I t appears from Table 1 of Annex II th a t in 1911 the traffic produced in Roumania and moving to other Roum anian ports, together with the traffic produced in R ou m an ia and moving to ports in o ther Danube States, was over 34 per cent of the to ta l Danube traffic. What­ever impairs the productiveness of Roumania is calculated seriously to impair the volume of Danube traffic.

The products of Roum ania are principally cereals, petroleum and its derivatives, and lumber. By far the m ost im portant, from the standpoint of transportation, are the cereals • and it is as to cereals th a t the conditions still appear to be of a distinctly unfavourable character! I t is true th a t in 1924 the great falling off in the production of cereals was intensified by unusually poor crops. B u t there is much to indicate th a t the trouble is of a more fundam ental character. The Roum anian authorities furnished, for the purpose of this investigation, estimates of the production and exports of grain before the w ar for the Old Kingdom and estimates of produc­tion and exports of grain in 1923 for the present and larger Kingdom. These estimates show :

Before the war in the Old Kingdom :

These estimates indicate th a t the home consumption of cereals has increased from 2.2 million tons before the war to 7.4 million tons since the war, or an increase of 236%, although the population has increased only 126 per cent. Perhaps th is estimate of increased consumption in 1923 is too great. If so, i t m ust be due to the estimate of production in 1923 being too great." The estimate of the small export of cereals in 1923, as compared with the pre-war period, is fully supported by the figures of pre-war and post-war exports supplied by the maritime ports of Braila and Galatz.

As to increased home consumption of cereals, one explanation is th a t the population has come to rely upon th e use of white bread to a far greater extent th an in the past ; another reason assigned is th a t some of th e new parts of the enlarged Kingdom do no t produce as much of the cereal crops as they consume.

As to diminished production of cereals, the view has been expressed th a t the rapid splitting up of large estates in Roum ania is operating to bring about a substantially smaller yield of grain because the exertions of th e small proprietors of the new estates are less effective than was the m anagem ent of the large estates before the war. There is also much to indicate that the Roum anian policy as to price control and as to export taxes on cereals have constituted a distinct discouragement to the producer. For example, it appears th a t the present Rouma­nian export taxes on cereals are approxim ately 2,000 lei per ton (about £2), while the present export ta x in the S. H. S. S tate is only about 700 lei per ton. In competition in the world market for the opportunity to sell cereals, it would seem th a t the Roum anian producer m ust accept a correspondingly smaller price and th a t this would discourage his production.

The combination of these w ith perhaps other adverse factors, which are the not unnatural results of the post-war readjustm ents, had the effect, when the country suffered the misfortune to have a very bad crop in 1924, of bringing about the prohibition of the exportation of wheat ; and i t has been sta ted th a t Roumania, despite its extraordinary agricultural resources, was compelled to im port wheat for its own use.

The weather conditions so far have appeared favourable, a t least in the western part of Roumania, for the grain crops in the present year, although in the eastern part, especially in Ressarabia, the outlook is not favourable. B ut it is by no means clear th a t the other and more fundam ental factors operating to discourage production of cereals and to diminish the surplus available for export have been removed. So long as they continue, the effect is likely to be substantially unfavourable upon Danube traffic.

It m ay be added th a t there appears to be a very im portant growth in the Roumanian

Production of cereals E x p o r t s .....................

5 .5 million tons3 .3 » »

In 1923, for the present Kingdom :Production of cereals . . E x p o r t s ...............................

9 .1 million tons 1.7 » »

— 21 —

exp o rta tio n of lumber. The principal port for the exportation of lumber overseas is Galatz. The following figures are of interest :

Export of cereals and lumber from Galatz.Cereals Lumber

Tons Tons

1911 ............................................ 424,000 180,0001923 ............................................ 245,000 269,0001924 ............................................ 277,000 423,000

The greatly increased production and exportation of lumber do not have great significance from the standpoint of Danube traffic because most of the lumber moves by rail to Galatz and Braila and is thence exported overseas. However, a substantial amount of lumber^moves from Galatz up the Danube to Bulgarian ports.

V III.

THE TERRITORIAL WATERS, ESPECIALLY LX THE S.H .S. STATE

I t appears th a t before the war the general practice was to regard the navigable tributaries of the Danube as open to the boats of all countries. In fact, Austria and Hungary were the principal carriers of the traffic of those tributaries, especially traffic moving from them to points on the Danube or vice versa.

The Save.

The Save, a tribu tary of g reat importance, flows for a long distance in an easterly direction through the S. H. S. State, emptying into the Danube a t Belgrade. Since the Save provides only the S.H . S. S tate with access to the sea, it is clear th a t the Peace Treaties do not include the Save as an international p a rt of the Danube river system 1, nor does the Danube S tatute include the Save as part of the internationalised river system to which the S tatute applies.

The Save is thus a p a rt of the territorial waters of the S .H . S. State, which now reserves to its own navigation interests the traffic to and from ports on the Save, even though such traffi moves between a Danube port in another count y and a port on the Save. This condition constitutes a substantial change in the navigation situation on the Danube.

The importance of this Save traffic is suggested by the following figures supplied by the D .D .S .G . and the M .F .T .R .

Save Traffic handled in 1911.

To or from Danube Save local traffic Ton; Tons

D. D. S. G.................................... 184,479 108,786M. F. T. R ................................... 42,098 19,494

T o t a l ...................... 226,577 128,280

or a grand to ta l of 354,857 tons of traffic.

1 Article 275 of the Treaty of Trianon and corresponding Articles in the other Peace Treaties declare the Danube to be an international stream from Ulm to its mouth, “ together with all navigable parts of this river system which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea ” .

— 22 —

The Bega and the Canals.

Other im portan t waterways to be considered in this connection are the following :1. The King Peter Canal, formerly the Francis Canal, extending from the Danube ports

of Baja in H u n g a ry 1 and of Bezdan in the S. H. S. State in a south-westerly direction to Stari Becij, a point on the Tisza also in the .S.H. S. State.

2. The Prince Alexander Canal, formerly the Francis Joseph Canal, extending in a southerly direction from Nali Stapar, a point on the King Peter Canal to Novi Sad on the Danube.

3. The Bega River, extending from a point above Temesvar in Roum ania to Tit el in the S. H. S. State, where il empties into the Tisza a few kilometers above the point a t which the la tter joins the Danube.

The King Peter and the Prince Alexander Canals are owned and operated by a company which performs the towage service and which charges dues for the pa: sage of barges through the canals. A t present the company is an S. H. S. corporation, b u t its stock is chiefly held in Great Britain.

These three waterways run through an exceedingly fertile region wrhich produces large amounts of cereals. The S .H .S . authorities estimate th a t in 1923 there originated on thesewaterways the following traffic :

Tons

Bega R i v e r ............................................ 210,200King Peter C a n a l ................................... 65,900Prince Alexander C a n a l ...................... 3,900

The D .D .S . G. and the M. F. T. R. advise th a t in 1911 they handled on these waterways the following traffic :

Local traffic Traffic to or from Danube Tons Tons

D. D. S. G. : Bega R iv e r ...................... 1,250 146,550The two c a n a l s .......................... 700 10,300

M. F. T. R . : Bega R i v e r .................. 140 52,575The two c a n a l s .......................... — 10,086

2,090 219,511

There seems to be no claim th a t the Danube S tatu te includes these three waterways or any of them in its definition of the internationalised river system.

As to the Bega, however, it is suggested, on behalf of interests outside the S. H. S. State, th a t Article 275 of the T reaty of Trianon and the corresponding articles of the other Peace Treaties are still in force and th a t they declare th a t the Danube is an international stream from Ulm to its m outh “ together with all navigable parts of this river system which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea with or w ithout transhipm ent from one vessel to another ” ; th a t the Bega naturally provides more than one State with access to the sea ; and th a t the fact th a t the Bega is provided with a system of locks and dams does not affect the fac t th a t , in the sense of the articles of the Peace Treaties, the Bega “ naturally ” provides both Roum ania and the S. H. S. State with access to the sea and hence is an interna­tional pa rt of the Danube river system. The S. H. S. State and Roum ania deny th a t these argum ents supply any basis for trea ting as internationalised any waterway not included in the definition contained in the Danube S ta tu te and they further deny th a t the Bega “ natu­rally ” provides Roum ania and the S .H .S . S tate w ith access to the sea.

There thus arises a fundam ental issue as to the right of the S .H .S . S tate and Roumania under the Peace Treaties and other conventions. This question of principle, unless now resolved by some new accord, can be disposed of only by resort to the methods of adjudication provided in the Peace Treaties or other conventions.

Unless and until such a decision to the effect th a t the Bega is international shall be pro­nounced by some tribunal, by whose decision the States involved have agreed to be bound, it

1 Part in Hungary only a “ feeder canal ” and now out of use.

— 23 —

seems clear th a t the present sta tus as to the Bega will continue, except to the ex ten t th a t either Roumania or the S. H . S. S tate shall agree to make other arrangements, general or special.

The Question of According, without Prejudice to the Principle, Access to Territorial Waters in cases where the States’ Interest would be Promoted.

Aside from the question of principle, the S. H. S. representatives insist th a t there are, in fact, strong reasons of State policy why the traffic in the territorial waters should be reserved for the enjoyment of S. H. S. navigation interests and th a t the S. H. S. State does so reserve it. The S. H. S. representatives say th a t their State m ust not be dependent upon foreign naviga­tion interests and th a t the only w^ay to avoid this condition of dependence is for the State to see th a t its own shipping interests are developed and strengthened ; th a t if the foreign shipping companies, m any of which are much older, stronger and more experic need than the S. H. S. shipping interests, were to be perm itted to share in this traffic, they would probably get such a large p a r t of the traffic as to weaken seriously the home shipping interests.

The foreign shipping interests insist, however, th a t the S. H. S. State really penalises its own subjects by denying to them the right to avail themselves of the shipping facilities of the other navigation companies on the Danube, and claim that, on account of the policy of the S. H . S. State, its subjects a t times suffer from a seriously insufficient service because the S. H. S. shipping interests cannot always m eet the demands for shipment in the busy seasons of the year. I t has been sta ted th a t a t times the producers of cereals along the Bega have suffered loss because of delay in moving their crops and th a t this would not have occurred if the foreign shipping companies had been perm itted to participate in moving the traffic. Some of the foreign shipping representatives have also stated th a t in one year a considerable p a rt of the prune crop on the Save was lost because of the inability of the domestic shipping interests to move the traffic prom ptly. The representatives of the S. H. S. State claim th a t the handling of all this traffic has been greatly improved b u t further say tha t, even if there be inconvenience of this character, i t is still t rue th a t the broader and more im portant policy of the State, looking to the future, is to build up its own shipping interests.

However, the practical question still remains whether, from t ime to time, the S. H . S. State m ay no t find it to its own advantage, while maintaining in the fullest sense its stand on the question of principle, to m ake exceptions to its practice with respect to its territorial waters, if it becomes convinced th a t its people would derive advantage therefrom w ithout weakening its own navigation interests. The S. H. S. State would have the m atter in its own hands as to the times when and the conditions on which foreign companies m ight be perm itted to parti­cipate in emergencies in handling th is traffic. The State could exact such compensations as would avoid any weakening of its shipping interests.

The Practical Situation as to Roumanian part of the Bega.

Roum ania is as positive as is the S. H . S. State on the principle involved as to the Bega, but has found it expedient, as a m atte r of tem porary practice, to permit foreign companies to carry traffic to and from its portion of the Bega. Roumania requires th a t a special perm it be obtained in respect of each trip bu t says th a t this permit is now issued very promptly upon application a t Rucharest to the Director-General of Ports and Communications by W ater.

The S. H. S. State, while perm itting the barges of other States to go to and from the Rou­manian p a rt of the Bega, requires th a t these barges shall be towed through the S. H. S. waters by tug boats of S. H. S. companies. The foreign shipping companies state th a t he S. H. S. State requires th a t permits shall be obtained from it for any such movement of barges, b u t the S. H. S. authorities advise th a t such permits are no longer required. In view of this declara­tion of the S. H. S. authorities, it is suggested th a t if any local functionary should continue to insist upon permits, the m atte r can probably by cleared up by appeal to the authorities at Belgrade.

Of course, in the m atter of supplying domestic shipping to render the service on the Bega, Roumania and the S. H . S. State are not in the same situation. In order for the Roumanian boats to serve the Roum anian p a rt of the Bega, they would have to operate almost wholly

— 24

outside of Roum ania and out of touch with the principal operations of the Roum anian fleets ; whereas S. H. S. boats can serve the S. H. S. pa rt of the Bega and remain in direct touch with thé ordinary operations of the S. H. S. fleets. The Roum anian attitude, however, indicates that arrangements with foreign shipping are practicable, whenever desirable in the interest of th e m ovem ent of the traffic, w ithout any im pairm ent of the principle.

IX.

THE {RIGHT OF A STATE TO «EXCLUDE ABSOLUTELY ALL FOREIGN INTERESTS FROM ITS CABOTAGE OB STBICTLY INTEBNAL TBAFFIC.

Prior to the war, this question seems to have had no practical bearing. The active com­panies, principally of Austria and Hungary, appear to have handled w ithout question internal traffic in each of the States along the Danube.

As a result of the Peace Treaties and the Danube S tatu te, and the practical construction placed thereon by the S. H. S. S tate and Roumania. a fundam ental change h a ; come about. Each of these two S ates claims and exercises the right to exclude navigation interest of all other States from any participation w hatever in any form of its cabotage or interna' traffic on the Danube.

The Question of Principle.

The specific provisions of the Danube S ta tu te on this subject are the following :

Article 22.

On the international waterw ay of the Danube, the transport of goods and passen­gers between the ports of separate riparian States as well as between the ports of the same S tate is unrestricted and open to all flags on a footing of perfect equality.

Nevertheless, a regular service for passengers or for national or nationalised goods between the ports of one and the same S tate m ay only be carried out by a vessel under a foreign flag in accordance with the national laws and in agreement with the autho­rities of the R iparian States concerned.

|Ad Article 22 (F inal Protocol).

(a) By the traffic referred to in the second paragraph of Article 22 shall be under­stood any public service for the transport of p tssengers and goods organised under a foreign flag between the ports of one and the same State, when th a t service is carried on sufficiently regularly, un interruptedly and in volume sufficient to influence unfavour­ably, to the same ex ten t as regular lines properly so called, the^ national interests .of the S tate within which it is carried on.

The effect of the position of Roum ania and the S. H . S. State seems to be :(1) T ha t the provision of the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Danube Statute

th a t the transport of goods and passengers between ports of the same State is unre­stricted and open to all flags on a footing of perfect equality is entirely nullified, in the case of regular service for passengers or goods, by the second paragraph of that article, so th a t Article 22 as a whole merely means th a t any riparian State has an absolute right to prohibit all regular service for passengers or good ; between its own ports to all foreign in terests ;

— 25 —

(2) T ha t in view of the Final Protocol’s addendum (a) to Article 22, any sort of service is to be trea ted as a regular service.

One of the Roum anian officials suggests, moreover, th a t internal traffic on the Danube in any one S tate is s trictly analogous to coastwise maritime traffic, and th a t Roum ania has as much right to exclude absolutely all foreign shipping interests from any participation in its internal traffic on th e Danube as i t has to effect a similar exclusion of foreign interests in respect of m aritime coasting traffic. Formerly Roumania gave permission from time to time to certain foreign interests, particularly French and Greek, to handle internal traffic on a particular trip . French and Greek interests both claim th a t Roumania no longer gives even these occasional permissions.

Germany, Austria and H ungary, and also France and Greece, complain of the to ta l exclu­sion of their shipping interests from cabotage in the S. H. S. State and Roumania. Suggestions have been made to the effect th a t :

1. The true principles of trea ty interpretation require the first and second para ­graphs of Article 22 to be so interpreted, in respect of transport between ports of the same State, as to give both these paragraphs substantial and consistent effect, in accord­ance with the general spirit of the Danube S tatu te ; and

2. In any event a refusal to perm it foreign shipping interests to participate in any service between ports of the same State, although the service is not regular or the equivalent of a regular service, is inconsistent with the second paragraph of Article 22 and the addendum above quoted.

Article 38 of the Danube S ta tu te provides th a t all questions relating to the interpretation of the Danube S ta tu te shall be subm itted to the International Commission of the Danube, and provides for appeal from the decisions of th a t Commission. It does not appear th a t the m ethod of decision thus pointed ou t in the Danube S ta tu te has been resorted to. Unless and until that method shall be resorted to and shall result in a decision adverse to Roumania and the S. H. S. State, it is reasonable to assume th a t those two States will m aintain, firmly, in prin ciple, their present position.

The Question of Permitting, without Prejudice to the Principle, Participation in Cabotageif Advantageous to the State.

S. H. S. officials insist th a t it is the Government’s du ty to m aintain its present practice in order to avoid dependence upon foreign shipping interests and to build up its own shipping interests. These representatives frankly adm it th a t this policy m ay result in their nationals along the Danube receiving less frequent and convenient service in respect of local shipments than they would enjoy if they were free to employ for such traffic the boats of all navigation companies operating on the Danube. B u t these representatives say, nevertheless, th a t the greater and more im portant interest for the S. H. S. State is to build up the S. H. S. shipping interests on the Danube, not for the benefit of their stockholders, bu t for the benefit of the larger and more perm anent interests of the State itself.

Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, H ungary and Bulgaria now make it a practice to allow, on a basis of reciprocity, participation in their cabotage to shipping interests of other States. However, the interests of these countries are substantially different from those of Roumania and the S. H. S. State. Bulgaria has no im portant navigation interest, and so has a natural desire to encourage foreign services between her ports. Neither Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany nor Hungary has anything like as much internal traffic along the Danube as is possessed by either Roumania or the S. H . S. State.

It is to be assumed th a t from time to time questions will arise as to the extent to which either Roumania or the S. H. S. S tate m ay find it in its interest to give permission for specified foreign participation in its cabotage to the extent th a t such permission m ay promote the S ta te ’s own interest. Any such question will probably present two aspects :

1. Will it injure domestic shipping ?2. Will it promote the public convenience ?

— 26 —

As to injuring domestic shipping, some of the foreign shipping interests have indicated willingness to divide any revenues derived by them from cabotage with the domestic shipping concerns. In th is m anner i t would seem th a t a way would be open to secure protection against in jury to the domestic shipping interests.

As to promotion of the public convenience, the question of improvement in the service for the benefit of nationals of the particular S tate calls for comment.

Chart 10, Annex II, hereto brings ou t the much greater passenger service enjoyed by the nationals of Bulgaria, which permits foreign companies to engage in cabotage, than is enjoyed by the nationals of Roumania, which does not perm it such participation. Fo r example, between Vidin and R ustchuk in Bulgaria there are eight passenger services in each direction per week, because foreign companies are perm itted to engage in this local traffic, while for the correspond­ing p a r t of the opposite Roum anian shore there is only one passenger service in each direction per week. I t would seem th a t the convenience of Roum anian nationals along the Danube would be greatly promoted by additional boat services. The m ap indicates th a t the railways are so located th a t im portan t places on the Danube in Roum ania do no t enjoy direct railway commu­nication. For example, while it takes only two hours to go from Corabia to Turnu Magurele by boat, i t would seem to require sixteen hours to go by train.

In the S. H . S. State, the Chart 10, A nnex II, indicates th a t in general there is a substantial am ount of passenger boa t service afforded by the S. H. S. shipping interests. However, between Bezdan and the m outh of the Drave there appears to be only one passenger boat service by S. H. S. interests ; between the m outh of the Drave and Bukova only three services per week in each direction ; between Novi Sad and Danube points as far as Zemun only three services per week in each direction.

I t is quite generally believedTth a t frequency and convenience of passenger service are calculated to stim ulate the am ount of passenger travel, and it m ight well be th a t carefully safeguarded additions to the passenger boat service in the S. H . S. S tate and Roum ania would so increase the passenger revenues as to afford a greater to ta l revenue for the domestic shipping concerns, especially if the arrangements involved paym ent to them of a substantia l proportion of the profits received by the foreign shipping concerns.

Somewhat similar observations are applicable to the frequency of service by the self-pro­pelled barges which engage in carrying package freight. These barges, which ply up and down the river for foreign companies, m ight very readily supply valuable additional facilities to the communities along the Danube in S. H . S. S tate and Roumania, under arrangements which would safeguard the interests which those States naturally feel they m ust pro tect to the limit of their t re a ty rights.

I t is probably also true a t times th a t communities upon the Danube in the S. H. S. State and Roum ania cannot obtain barges for the carriage of cereals and other bulk freight between two points in the same State because of the great strain p u t upon the domestic concerns at the time. In such circumstances these communities would derive distinct benefit from the ability to obtain, under carefully safeguarded arrangem ents sanctioned by the State, the use of barges belonging to foreign shipping companies.

As to all these sorts of river traffic, it is clear th a t very little additional cost would be involved if the foreign shipping companies could give internal traffic the benefit of their boats which are already in those waters, and which otherwise would be moving either emp y or only partially loaded in the direction in which such local traffic would move. W ith such opportu­nities for economy it would seem there could be m any occasions where arrangem ents could be made which would protect the S ta te ’s national policy and greatly promote the convenience of its nationals.

The volume of the transporta tion facilities available and the frequency with which either passenger trips or freight shipm ent can be m ade are qui Le generally considered both as aids to progress and as evidences of progress. I t teems reasonable to anticipate tha t, from time to time and under special conditions, Roum ania and the S. H. S. S tate m ay each find ways in which to utilise in its internal traffic, no t only its own companies, bu t also foreign companies whose boats are a t hand immediately available, on terms which will fully safeguard national policy and ye t perm it agricultural and industrial development, and afford to the world greater evidence th a t ample transporta tion facilities are available and are being utilised.

— 27 —

Refusal to permit Transportation of Foreign Companies’ Own Employees or Supplies.

Some of the foreign navigation companies have stated tha t the S. H. S. S tate has carried its policy as to cabotage to the ex ten t of refusing to permit a foreign navigation company to trans ­port its own employees on its owTn boats between two of its own stations in the S. H. S. State, and th a t Roum ania had carried its policy as to cabotage to the ex ten t of refusing 1o perm it such a foreign navigation company to transport its own supplies in its own boats between two of its own stations in Roumania. The S. H. S. authorities and the Roum anian authorities indicate th a t no such policies or practices on their p a rt exist a t the present time. If any such policy should be insisted upon by local functionaries in either of these States, it would seem th a t the m atter could be readily cleared up by application to the governmental authorities.

X.

TIIE RIVER’S PHYSICAL PROBLEMS.

There is attached hereto as Annex V a description of the physical aspects of the Danube channel with some histoi ical data theneon, together with some comments upon projects for improvement and also upon what appears to be immediately desirable work.

The usual type of barge employed throughout the navigable length of the Danube is a barge of 650 tons capacity. W hen fully loaded its draught is about i.9 meters. The largest passenger steamers draw from 1.6 to 1.7 meters. The general concept ion has long been th a t for satisfactory navigation the river channel should have a minimum depth of two meters a t low water.

On most parts of the river the depth of the channel does not differ a t present from the pre-war depth, bu t a t some critical places is less favourable than before the wrar due to inability to perform currently the ordinary maintenance upon the regulation works.

At certain critical points on the river there are m any days in a navigation season when the depth is likely to be reduced to considerably less than two meters so as to prevent satis­factory loading of barges, interfere a t some places with the movement of large passenger steamers, and a t times the conditions have involved a virtual suspension of navigation in some localities for periods of several days in the midst of the navigation season. These physical obstructions to navigation are particularly serious because the condition of low water is generally experienced in the very midst of the season for moving the crops, which constitute the most important traffic on the Danube. Details concerning these obstructions and the resulting small depth of water are showm in the Annex. The outstanding features may be summarised as follows :

The most frequent and extensive lack of the desired depth of two meters appears in the upper part of the river.

Between Ratisbon and Vienna.

The difficulties here promise to be corrected in part by the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal project. The section between Passau and Hofkirchen will be fully taken care of by the canalised section just above Passau nowr upon the point of completion by the German Government with the approval of the International Danube Commission. The section above Hofkirchen is to be improved by low-water regulation. Experimental sections have already been completed here and it is expected th a t work will be commenced throughout wrhen the results of the experi­ments are known and the dam a t Passau is completed. The Annex describes this plan, which is part of the ultim ate canal project, whose realisation appears to be quite far in the future.

The conditions which prevent the desired realisation of the two-meters depth between Passau and Vienna are of such a nature th a t they cannot be removed without the

— 28 —

expenditure of substantial amounts of capital a t B ransta tt, Aschach and Struden. A pparently the only probability of effecting the desired improvement of the channel a t these places is to combine the necessary improvement for navigation p u rp oses with projects for hydro-electric development, as has already been done a t Passau. Such a solution appears to deserve serious consideration, promising as it does general economic benefits for Austria in addition to rendering river transport much more regular and efficient. Meanwhile it appears th a t navigation of this stretch of the river will be subjected from time to time to interferences similar to those which have been experienced in the past. The volume of traffic here is not nearly so great as it is further down the river. In 1923, the last year for which complete figures are available, traffic a t and above Linz amounted to 589,752 tons, whereas, on the other side of Vienna, the to ta l traffic below Bratislava amounted to 1,058,056 tons.

Between Vienna and Budapest.

Between Vienna and Gonyii the lack of depth has been due to unfavourable conditions in the 71 kilometers extending from Devin to Szap. In 1908, the Hungarian Government began the progressive regulation of the 90 kilometers from Devin to Gonyii. At the beginning of the war 30 kilometers of this had been completed. Of these 30 kilometers, the first 8 are on the frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia, then 11 y2 kilometers are entirely within Czechoslovakia and then the remaining 10 y2 kilometers are on the frontier between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The section on which the low-water regulation was not commented, i.e. below those mentioned, is entirely on the frontier between H ungary and Czechoslovakia.

Already Austria and Czechoslovakia have co-operated in beginning the removal of the difficulties which have developed on the 8 kilometers of their frontier. The work is nearing completion and will very materially improve navigation. By arrangem ent between the two States the future dredging, until a new agreement shall be made, will be performed by Czecho­slovakia. The portion of the river wholly in Czechoslovak territo ry is no t likely to become a limiting factor in the use of the 71 kilometers because the Czechoslovak Government appears to give the m atte r satisfactory a ttention. The remaining 51 % kilometers of this stretch which is p a rt of th e frontier between Czechoslovakia and H ungary has not yet received the necessary a tten tion , because the two States have so far not been able to pu t into effect any plan for doing the work. In October 1923, a Protocol was signed agreeing upon the physical difficulties which needed a tten tion and providing for the elaboration within a reasonable time of a project for the execution of the necessary regulation works. I t is understood th a t surveys have now been undertaken to adm it of the formulation of the project. It is to be earnestly hoped that the Governments of these two States will press forward this undertaking to completion, because a t present it is the obstacle here which constitutes the limiting factor upon navigation between Budapest, Bratislava and Vienna.

The volume of traffic in this p a rt of the river is extremely im portant. The obstructions referred to no t only seriously interfere with the economical carriage of frçight traffic but at tim es prevent, even in the m idst of the navigation season, the passage of the large passenger steamers carrying on through service between Vienna and Giurgiu.

Between Budapest, Belgrade and Moldova.

The portion of the Danube extending from Budapest to Belgrade and thence to Moldova is one of the busiest portions of the entire river from the standpoint of traffic. While depth conditions are, generally speaking, reasonably favourable, there is a serious limiting factor at Fajz where both banks are in H ungary, and there is a further condition almost as unfavour­able a t the m outh of the Tisza where both banks are in the S. H. S. State. At present the low depth a t Fajz is the controlling factor between Moldova or Belgrade and Budapest. As soon as the difficulty a t Fajz is removed by Hungary, the difficulty a t the m outh of the Tisza will become the limiting factor unless removed by the S. H. S. State.

I t is understood th a t each of the two problems is now receiving the atten tion of the Govern­m ent having jurisdiction. I t is to be hoped th a t the necessary work a t each place will be entered upon and brought to a conclusion in the early future.

— 29 —

The Iron Gates Section.

The next obstacles of outstanding importance are found in the sector between Moldova and Turnu Severin, or the Iron Gates sector. The difficulties in this sector are and always have been of the most serious character. In the last four years the number of days in the navigation season when barges could not be loaded to 1.6 meters was as follows :

1920 ......................................................................................................... 50192 1 ............................................................................................... 1311922 ............................................................................................... (not reported)1923 ......................................................................................................... 491924 ......................................................................................................... 23

The Annex points out th a t the effect of the increased régularisation work further up the river will be to facilitate the rapid running-off of flood waters, so th a t in unfavourable years the tendency will be to accentuate the lowness of the depth in the Iron Gates section.

The burdens of navigation in th is stretch are very pronounced. Not only m ust navigation encounter periods of low water when it is impossible to carry barges loaded to such an extent as to make their movement reasonably profitable, bu t a t practically all times the navigation companies are confronted with the necessity of breaking up and remaking their tows so as to adjust themselves to the varying currents of the river. A tow of normal size can be taken from Turnu Severin to a point just below the Iron Gates. It must then be broken up and an exceedingly powerful tug m ust be utilised to take one loaded barge of 800 tons cargo, or two of 500 tons cargo, through the Iron Gates. Then the tow may again be reformed in part and taken further up the river, where it m ust again be broken up to be taken piecemeal through the swift current a t Greben. Any project which could provide both a reliable state of water and an approxim ately uniform and moderate current would very greatly facilitate the efficiency of shipping operations.

Plans for Improvement.

But the problem of improvement is adm ittedly difficult. The Annex points out the various plans which have been and are being considered.

The plans for immense hydro-electric development both a t the Iron Gates and a t Greben appear to give promise of wonderful results not only to navigation for the benefit of all the Danube States bu t to the general economic strengthening of Boumania and the S. H. S. State, (a) provided a satisfactory m arket can be assured for the electricity which would be produced, and ( b) provided capital can be obtained upon reasonable terms, this depending upon the commercial and technical soundness of the project and upon the necessary assurance of international tranquility .

The only comment which can be added here to the detailed discussion in the Annex is that pending an opportunity for the realisation of the unusually large sources of power which now go to waste every day through this pa rt of the river not being harnessed to produce electri­city, the present adm inistration of th is section of the river should be strengthened and supported so as to enable it to obtain the fullest co-operation of all the riparian States, give the best possible service and make, a t least by degrees, the improvements which are obviously feasible a t the present tim e in the way of removing specific obstructions in the channels. Even these improvements will require substantial sums of capital which will be too great to be raised directly by dues on navigation and which it is not likely th a t Boumania and the S. H. S. State will feel justified in the near future in raising by themselves. It will therefore probably be desirable for the various riparian States to participate in raising the necessary funds, perhaps in pro­portion to their respective tonnages on the river. It is believed they would be well justified in doing this, if they continued to be assured of the impartiality, efficiency and economy of the Iron Gates service.

— 30 —

Administration of Iron Gates Service.

Before the w ar (and when nearly all the shipping on the river above the Iron Gates was Austro-Hungarian), H ungary constructed and administered the present works in this section of the river. The Treaty of Trianon (Article 288) placed the equipment, buildings and instal­lations of such works provisionally under the control of the International Commission provided for in the Treaty, and th a t Commission took charge and organised and administered the Iron Gates service accordingly for the purpose of m aintaining the works and applying the naviga­tion rules prescribed by the Commission.

By virtue of Articles 32 and 33 of the Danube S tatu te , special technical and administrative services are to be set up. The International Commission, on the basis of the proposals made by these services, is to decide on the measures in respect of upkeep and improvement administra­tion, and dues to m eet the expenditure involved. The Commission is to place a t the disposal of these services the equipment, buildings and fixtures referred to in Article 288 of the Treaty of Trianon.

Article 32 of the Danube S tatu te also provides th a t these services shall be set up by agree­m ent between Boum ania, the S. H. S. State and the International Commission. The services had, in fact, been set up prior to the Danube S tatu te by the International Commission, as that Commission was established under Article 286 of the Treaty of Trianon. These services have continued to function since the coming into effect of the Danube S tatute, although the agree­m ent referred to has not yet been m ad e .1

Article 32 also provides tha t, with the exception of pilots, who m ay be selected from the subjects of any country, the personnel of these services shall be provided and maintained by the two riparian States and th a t this personnel shall be placed under the direction of heads of services selected by the same States and approved by the International Commission.

In dealing with the policies and practices of th is part of the Danube, there are two inevit­ably conflicting elements, both of which deserve consideration, and concerning which it seems there ought to be a reasonable and practical compromise.

(1) This portion of the Danube is the frontier between Boum ania and the S. H. S. State ; they are the two States possessing riparian jurisdiction and it is only natural th a t they should have a strong solicitude for the manner in which these services shall be developed and conducted and th a t they should insist upon having an im portant p a rt in the selection of the personnel.

(2) This part of the Danube m ay be said to be international, in fact, in a far more com­plete sense than ever before. Before the war the navigation was almost entirely monopolised by Austro-Hungarian interests (the Boum anian and Greek navigation confined itself mostly to the portion of the river below the Iron Gates). Now we have German, Austrian, Czecho­slovak, Hungarian, S. H. S., Boum anian, French and Dutch companies actively plying on the Danube above the Iron Gates. The navigation interests of Boum ania and the S. H. S. State will, of course, continue to develop, because they have a strategic relationship to the great sources of Danube traffic, and they will continue to be dependent to an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g degree upon the use of this extremely difficult portion of the river. In the present year, to an extent not before known, the S. H. S. Syndicate has transported great quantities of maize from S. H. S. ports through the Iron Gates to Braila and Galatz for export by sea. The Boumanian ship­ping companies have participated in this same traffic. Therefore both of these sets of shipping interests have themselves utilised the Iron Gates section o f the river more than ever before. They have an interest in common with all the o ther shipping interests on the river to ensure the fullest possible development of this section and to remove therefrom those obstacles to navigation which so greatly impair the economy of shipping operations and threaten f r o m time to tim e to suspend the navigation altogether. It is clear th a t the adequate d e v e lo p m e n t ot this section will call for the co-operation and in all probability the financial assistance of the other Danube countries.

1 Roum ania and the S. H. S. State in June 1925 prepared and subm itted to the International C o m m iss io n a pro e of an agreement w ith the Commission. The Commission postponed consideration of the project until its next sessi , which will begin on Novem ber 30th next.

— 31 —

In such circumstances, i t is believed th a t in working out the compromise between these two sets of influences, the general public interest, including th a t of the two riparian States and their shipping concerns and their nationals dependent on Danube traffic, will be promoted by avoiding an unduly local aspect in the formation and working of the Iron Gates services, and by giving full effect to the part which the Statute indicates the International Commission should play as the representative of international interests. I t is the international shipping using the river and not the two i iparian States which will supply the funds for administering the Iron Gates services and for improving th a t section of the river, unless new arrangements shall be made for supplying funds through some other sort of international co-operation.

Complaint that Dues at Iron Gates are excessive.

The International Commission, according to the provisions of the Danube S tatu te, im ­poses dues only on ship tonnage to cover the cost of its Iron Gates services. Before the war dues were imposed by the Hungarian Government on goods and also on ship tonnage.

There has been some complaint on the part of the S. H. S. Syndicate th a t the present dues are more burdensome than the pre-war dues in the case of coal transported from the S. H. S. coal mines below the Iron Gates to points above the Iron Gates. The contrary, however, appears to be the fact. Before the war these dues were levied both on the coal cargo and on the capacity of the boat. For a 650-ton barge, the usual type on the upper river, the average cargoes in pre-war times were 420 tons and barges in the coal service were returned em pty to the point of loading. The dues collected pre-war were as follows :

420 (cargo) x 0 .6 0 .................................................................... = 252 crowns650 (boat capacity) x 0.20 ................................................. = 130 »650 (boat capacity on return) x 0 .20 ................................. = 130 »

512 crowns

At present, the dues upon the same barge loaded and em pty are :

650 x 0.28 X 2 = 364 francs (gold) or 350 crowns (gold).

If the return of the em pty boat is not included, the proportion is still more in favour ofthe present rates, because on th a t basis the pre-war dues were 382 crowns and the present duesare only 182 francs or 175 crowns.

The S. H. S. Syndicate representatives indicate th a t at present the burden of these dues causes this coal to move by rail. If the coal moves by rail the question may well arise as to whether this is not due to w hat are understood to be the extremely low railway rates in the S. H. S. State. I t has been sta ted th a t the railway rates in the S. H. S. State are, in general, on a gold basis, only about 50 per cent of the pre-war rates. If the present rail rates from these mines to points of destination are on a correspondingly low basis, this fact might account for this coal now moving by rail (the railway from the mines did not exist before the war). This aspect of the m atte r would deserve consideration if the view should still be entertained th a t it is the dues a t the Iron Gates which operate to prevent movements of this coal by water.

As far as an estim ate can be made, the general indication is tha t on a gold basis the present dues at the Iron Gates are only about one-third of the pre-war dues. The question arises whether they should not be increased, provided such increase would give promise of removing obstacles in the channel which now retard navigation and render it more costly and dangerous.

“ Vaskapu

Attention is called to the comments in the Annex upon the tug-boat Vaskapu. This appears to constitute a substantial burden upon the Iron Gates service and renders compara­tively little benefit in return. It would seem that some such alternative as is suggested in the Annex is w orthy of the serious consideration of the Commission and the riparian States.

— 32

The Channel at Sulina.

Another feature of outstanding importance is the channel a t Sulina. The Annex gives an outline of the development of the channel and the present conditions. The water depth began to diminish before the war and corrective measures were no t effectively applied until after the European Danube Commission was able to resume functioning after the war. There has been m uch complaint on the p a rt of Roum ania th a t the European Commission has moved far too slowly in this m atter. B u t for practical purposes, as far as the present physical aspects of the river are concerned, the im portan t thing now is th a t on the 25th of the m onth just closed, Ju ly 1925, the European Commission was able to announce the opening of the channel at Sulina through the newly extended jetties with a depth of tw enty feet. The Commission now indicates the purpose to continue its work until a depth of 24 feet is obtained. The Commis­sion reports, Ju ly 31st, depth already 22 feet.

The Development of Tributaries as Feeders.

The principal need of any transporta tion system not fully developed is adequate traffic so as to adm it of economical and efficient operation. An im portan t factor in the provision of th is adequate traffic is th e possession of feeders which will contribute a volume of traffic to the m ain a rtery of the system. This is a highly im portan t need of railway systems. It is also a need of the D anube and can be partly supplied by reciprocal arrangements with the railways (a m atte r discussed below), and partly supplied by the development of the Danube’s tributaries. Annex V shows th a t im portant tribu taries , the Drave, Tisza and Morava, which are parts of th e international system , are still not fully developed. If and when they shall be improved so as to adm it of navigation by the D anube tugs and barges, im portan t additional sources of Danube traffic will become available.

An even m ore immediate inducem ent to such improvement of these tributaries is th a t it will give to the communities along them the great advantage of being able to transport by water w hat they produce and w hat they consume, and will greatly widen the range of their markets.

The same considerations apply equally to the further improvement of those Danube tri­butaries which are territo ria l waters. Such im provem ent will g reatly enlarge the markets of those living on such waters, and will increase the D anube traffic, principally for the domestic navigation concerns.

The General Principle oj Dues upon Danube Navigation.

The Danube, so far as has been developed in th is investigation, is the only river in Europe w ith im portan t traffic where dues are imposed upon navigation to pay for the river improve­ments. On the D anube dues are a t present imposed only for the im provem ent a t Sulina and a t the Iron Gates.

The D anube S ta tu te provides th a t the In ternational Commission m ay authorise a State which carries out works of im provem ent to impose m oderate dues to cover the cost thereof. It is a grave question w hether it would be in th e in terest of the riparian States to extend the principle of imposing dues for im provem ent work beyond the present application of th a t prin­ciple a t Sulina and the Iron Gates. A ny extension of the principle would likely serve as a new precedent, and the result m ight be th a t navigation on the Danube would become subject to a constantly increasing series of dues on different parts of the river, and in the aggregate these might constitu te a very heavy burden upon the use of the river. A t the same tim e, the Danube vessels, while paying these heavy dues, would be competing w ith State-owned railways, which always have the financial support of the S tate. I t is to be hoped th a t all improvement work outside th a t covered by the already established practice a t Sulina and the Iron Gates will be financed b y the S tates interested therein, so as to leave navigation free from any such addi­tional burdens.

As to Sulina and the Iron Gates also, it would be in the interests of navigation if the scheme of dues would be supplanted b y some other plan so as to make navigation entirely free, but

it is appreciated th a t a t the present time, when questions of S tate finances are still extremely difficult, it m ay be found impracticable to provide an adequate substitu te for the practice already established as to those two parts of the river.

Comprehensive Plan for Improvement.

There should be established some general comprehensive programme for the fu ture improvement of the Danube according to some definite and consistent scheme. This view is recognised by Article 11 of the Danube S ta tu te , which provides :

“ On the basis of proposals and plans submitted by the riparian S tate, the International Commission draws up the general programme of im portant works and improvements which should be carried out in the interests of the navigability of the international river system and of which the execution m ay be spread over a period of several years. ”

Up to the present time, the Commission has not found it practicable to take definite action looking to the drawing up of such plans. Indeed, the Commission has not yet found it prac­ticable or expedient to establish the technical departm ent which it is authorised to establish by Article 27 of the S tatu te .

To make such a plan it is necessary to consider the probable volume of Danube traffic, and to determine whether the cost of a given project would be justified in the light of the am ount of traffic which would be carried. For example, if a minimum depth of 2.5 meters a t low water should be the objective, the questions would arise : How much would th a t project cost ? What traffic would probably be carried ? W ould th a t volume of traffic justify th a t cost ?

Such a study would require much time and would have to be conducted by competent engineers of recognised ability. In view of the time required and the complexity of th e sub­ject, it seems highly desirable to organise for the study and initiate it promptly.

A few years from now the riparian States and the International Commission m ay be confronted w ith th e necessity of taking prom pt decisions as to specific extensive projects. If in the meantime such a comprehensive study has not been made and a general programme developed, all in terests will be largely in the dark as to how to reach a decision on the specific proposals.

Furtherm ore, it m ay be only a few years until there will be a very compelling necessity for actually adopting and executing a general programme of improvements. To be ready to meet th a t need, it is im portan t th a t the preliminary work should begin promptly.

X I.

FR O N TIER FO RM A LITIES.

Before the war, a vessel could proceed from Passau to Orsova, a distance of 1,272 kms., without passing a frontier. Consequently, delays from frontier formalities were negligible. To-day, a vessel m aking such a voyage encounters formalities in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary (both upon entering and leaving), in the S. H. S. State (both upon entering and leaving), and in addition i t m ust go through the Boumanian Customs and police formalities at Orsova.

In the aggregate, these delays, to the ex ten t th a t they are avoidable, constitute a serious economic waste of shipping, diminish the utilisation of the Danube, and operate prejudicially upon the navigation companies and upon their clients.

In discussing these problems, no fundam ental issue of principle arises. All of the States indicate a desire to reduce these delays and no State can have anything to gain by continuing methods which cause unnecessary delays. The navigation companies of each State have an

— 34 —

increasing business in the other States and all the companies have a common in terest to encour­age the elimination of frontier delays all along the Danube.

I t is believed the burdens arising from these formalities have been steadily diminished though very slowly. Perhaps the principal reason they have not diminished more rapidly is th a t since the w ar the responsible authorities of all the Danube States have been overwhelmed with novel and unforeseen governmental problems of the greatest varie ty and complexity. I t has therefore been exceedingly difficult for them to take their a ttention from other pressing and perplexing demands for the purpose of giving special attention to the simplification of frontier formalities.

There is also considerable expense for fees and taxes of various kinds which constitute a distinct additional financial burden from which the D anube’s competitors — the railways — are free. So far as these items have been officially reported, they are shown in Annex VI.

Ratisbon, Passau and Vienna.

A suggestive outline of the general character of these frontier formalities will be afforded by the following sum m ary w ith reference to a loaded barge moving from Ratisbon in Germany to a p o rt in Roum ania :

The usual clearance papers m ust be obtained a t Ratisbon.A stop m ust be made a t Passau for Customs formalities for the ex it from Germany, and also

for the entrance to Austria (Austria having established a Customs office a t Passau as a matter of convenience to shipping, which is, however, paid for by the principal navigation companies). For the German authorities a statistical notice m ust be supplied, and, if the goods are on the prohibited list, an export licence m ust be shown. If the goods are in transit, however, from another country, say Belgium or France, a certificate to th a t effect from the other frontier m ust be furnished. On behalf of Austria, in addition to the usual production of papers, the goods are placed under seal. Germany, Austria and H ungary have an agreement whereby they m utually recognise each other’s seals.

Upon arrival a t Vienna a stop m ust be made, and the frontier examinations are there made for the purpose of exit from Austria. I t is represented th a t these are comparatively brief and simple.

Czechoslovakia.

A stop m ust be m ade a t Bratislava and a declaration of the cargo, together with certain statistical information, m ust be given. To make the required stop i t is necessary for the tug w ith its tow of barges to head upstream , and therefore there m ust be a troublesome and rather dangerous tu rn in the very swift current and ra ther narrow channel. After the formalities are concluded, the tug-boat w ith its tow m ust again tu rn under the difficult circumstances mentioned and proceed downstream.

Hungary, entrance and exit.

Upon arriving a t the Hungarian frontier a t Szob a stop m ust be made for the Hungarian frontier formalities of entrance. The tow of barges cannot, of course, go alongside the ponton, so the barges m ust be anchored in the river. Hence delay is necessarily involved in effecting communication between any given barge and the shore. The barge papers and a list of its supplies m ust be presented. Police inspection m ust also be made, including examination of the papers of the crew. A Customs agent and a police agent m ust accompany the barge throughout H ungarian waters, the barge-owner paying their compensation, furnishing their lodging and subsistence and paying their return fare to the point of departure. But those “ convoys” m ay be avoided if all the goods are below hatches and the hatches have b ee n sealed, and if the shipping company has given satisfactory bond. I t is understood th a t the D. D. S. G., the M. F. T. B ., the Sud-Deutscher and the Bavarian Lloyd have given such bonds.

The foreign shipping companies claim th a t when the barge reaches Budapest another Customs exam ination m ust be made. The H ungarian authorities deny this. The point will be discussed below.

— 35 —

When the barge reaches Mohacs, 17 kms. above the Hungarian-S. H. S. frontier, another stop m ust be made for the H ungarian frontier formalities of exit. The necessary communi­cation between the anchored barge and the shore m ust be effected. The stamped papers which have been delivered to the barge-master on entering Hungary are taken up. The seals are removed. A bill of health m ust be issued by the Sanitary Office of the Hungarian R iver Police.

S. H. S. State, entrance and exit.

The barges then proceed 22 kilometers to Bezdan (left bank) and Batina (right bank),5 kilometers below the Hungarian-S. H. S. frontier, and m ust there stop for the S. H. S. fron­tier formalities of entrance. Again the barges m ust be anchored and communication effected with the shore, and in this instance with both shores, because the Customs agents are a t Bez­dan and the police agents are a t Batina. A report m ust be made to the Port Captain a t Bez­dan, and a declaration of transit goods m ust be drawn up in Serbian. A Customs officer visits the barges, examines the goods, and places seals on the hatches. The police inspection is supposed to be, b u t is not always, made a t the same time. The police inspection involves examining and checking the papers of the members of the crew. There m ust also be a visit from the sanitary officer, and the san itary certificate obtained in Hungary m ust be produced. In all cases the S. H. S. Customs agents and police agents m ust accompany barges, a t the ex­pense of the barge-owners for wages, lodging and subsistence, and also for return fare to the point of departure.

The barge then proceeds through S. H. S. waters to Gradiste, where the stop m ust be made for the S. H. S. frontier formalities of exit. Again the barges m ust be anchored and communi­cation must be effected with the Customs, police and sanitary officers on the shore ; there are visits of these agents to the barges and the production of papers.

Roumanian Port of Destination : No Frontier Formalities even where both banks of Danubeare in Roumania.

WThen the barge reaches its Boum anian port of destination, the usual Customs and police formalities in such port m ust be undergone. The Roumanian destination m ay be a port below Tutrakan, the point where the eastern Bulgarian frontier touches the river. Below th a t point both banks of the Danube are in Roum anian territory. Nevertheless, Roumania does not require entrance frontier formalities such as have been described above in the case of other Danube States whose frontiers are crossed by the barge. Boumania contents itself with the Customs and police formalities in the port of destination.

Upstream Movement.

In the event of a cargo moving upstream from a point in Roumania to a point in Germany, the Customs exam inations and other formalities take place in reverse order, bu t substantially as above described. A sanitary certificate m ust be obtained downstream and produced in the S. H. S. S tate and Hungary.

The stop a t B ratislava for upstream movement is, of course, less difficult than for the downstream movement.

A difference in procedure to be noted is th a t when boats leave Austria to enter Germany a stop has been required a t Engelhartszell in Austria, on the German frontier, for the purpose of the Austrian Customs inspection. This has been objected to by the navigation companies, which claimed th a t such inspection could be more conveniently made by the Austrian Customs officials at Passau.

Germany gives Incoming Navigator Option of paying Duty at Frontier or at Port of Destination.

With respect to all goods destined to a point in Germany, th a t State gives the barge- owner the choice of paying du ty a t Passau or a t the port of destination. If the duty is not

36 —

paid a t Passau, the cargo m ust be sealed, or if the cargo does not adm it of being sealed, con­voys m ust accompany the two a t the cost of the shipping company for wages, lodging,’ sub­sistence and return fare to the point of departure.

Transit Traffic.

As to traffic passing through a country in transit, the Danube S tatu te, as interpreted in the general directives announced by the International Commission a t its session in November 1924, provides th a t the only declaration which can be exacted from the boa t’s m aster relative to the cargo transported is one showing whether the goods carried are prohibited by sanitary or veterinary laws of the S tate or by international convention ; and such declaration and verification are to be w ithout expense to the master. Again, the S tatu te, as i t is interpreted perm its only a sum m ary inspection of the boat, and prohibits in ordinary circumstances any inspection or exam ination of goods in transit.

Likewise, the Danube S tatu te, as thus interpreted, does not sanction, in the event a Customs agent is sent as convoy with the boat, any expense being imposed upon the boat’s m aster beyond th a t of. lodging and subsistence, nor does the S tatu te appear to sanction the imposition of any expense for any police agent accompanying the boat. In practice, it seems th a t a tow of barges very generally includes barges containing transit traffic and barges con­tain ing traffic destined to or going from the country in which the formalities take place. For this reason i t seems th a t, in general, little if any distinction is made between the formalities imposed on the transit traffic and the formalities imposed on other traffic, either in the time or character of the examination, or the imposition of expenses for convoys or other reasons. The practical effect appears to be th a t these burdens are imposed on most if not all of the traffic moving up and down the river.

,7Yze Serious Loss of Time for Tugs and Barges and the resulting Economic Waste.

The economic waste involved in unnecessary formalities or unnecessary delays in connec­tion therew ith deserves to be emphasised. These delays p u t Danube navigation under an additional handicap as compared w ith transporta tion by its competitor, the railways. During these delays tugs m ust be kept under steam, the crews of tugs and barges m ust be paid and the entire m aterial remains unproductive. The D. D. S. G. estim ates th a t, by reason of the frontier exam ination a t Bezdan and Gradiste in the year 1924, its steamers and barges lost 109 steamer days and 777 barge days a t Bezdan, and 41 steam er days and 189 barge days a t Gradiste. On the basis of the to ta l traffic on the river for 1924 and allowing three hours a t each frontier, a calculation seems to indicate th a t there was a loss a t the frontiers alone of not less than 60,000 barge hours, or 5,000 barge days on account of formalities, with corresponding loss of tug hours and tug days, to say nothing of the financial burdens for fees, taxes, cost of Customs and police convoys and so forth. All of these m atters represent a handicap upon Danube navigation which was largely if not wholly non-existing before the war. These losses p u t navigation at a disadvantage w ith railway transporta tion, both in point of time and in point of cost. They therefore deserve the m ost serious consideration.

I t is believed the opportunity for favourable consideration of these m atters is much better th an in the past, because the State governm ents should now have a be tte r opportunity to direct their a tten tion to these problems than they have heretofore had a t any tim e since the war. I t is believed also th a t all the States will be justified in approaching this m atte r in a common spirit and w ith a common object, because there is no divergence on the principle involved, because none of the States have any substantial motive for preserving unnecessary formalities or unnecessarily costly methods, and the navigation companies of all the States have the strongest motives to co-operate in minimising these difficulties.

Engelhartszell Complaint already remedied by Austria.

It is a pleasure to report in the first instance th a t the Austrian authorities have already signified their willingness to perm it navigation companies to have the Customs exam ination

for upstream traffic a t Passau instead of Engelhartszell, in cases where the companies so prefer,

— 3 7 —

and have already notified the shipping companies th a t they have this option. This is a grati­fying illustration of a willingness to co-operate through setting aside a customs-house routine which is burdensome to navigation and is not essential for the interests of the State.

The Stop oI all Tows at Bratislava.

It is believed the Czechoslovak Government would be justified in giving serious conside­ration to the question whether some plan, fully protective of its interests, cannot be adopted for maintaining the necessary supervision of transit traffic and obtaining the necessary statistics in regard to shipping w ithout burdening navigation companies with the present system, which involves all downstream traffic in the necessity of making the difficult and dangerous double turn in the extrem ely swift current a t Bratislava. Aside from the time and difficulty for downstream traffic 01 making the stop a t Bratislava and îesuming the journey, very little time is required, because the formalities are comparatively brief. If so, cannot some other method be devised which would be as efficacious, if not more so, and which would avoid such substantial delay to shipping ? Could not the responsible navigation companies be perm itted to give bond, whereby they would ensure the submission of the desired information by telegraph or telephone from Vienna for downstream tralfic, and from the Hungarian frontier or Gônyü for upstream traffic ? It would seem th a t such bonds, together with a reasonable amount of inspection by means of a police boat, would be a t least as efficacious as the present system.

If some alternative solution of this problem could be found, it would not only save tim e and cost to navigation, but it would constitute an encouraging and stim ulating example of co-operation on th e p a rt of the States in changing existing routine for the purpose of lessening the burdens of navigation.

Hungary asserts there is no Customs Examination at Budapest for Traffic passing through.

Since the Hungarian authorities positively deny th a t any customs examination is required at Budapest in the case of traffic not originating a t or destined to th a t port, the navigation companies should take note of these positive assurances. If hereafter the masters of vessels report th a t such examination has been required, it would seem th a t the m atter could be prom ptly cleared up by conference w ith the responsible Hungarian authorities. Possibly representations on the part of those in charge of boat crews to the effect th a t they are compelled to remain some time a t B udapest m ay at times be exaggerated because the boat crews m ay be glad to find opportunities to spend a few hours in tha t port.

The Double Stop and the Double Delay at Hungarian-S.H .S. Frontier.

As to the double stop and the double delay on account of Hungary maintaining its frontier office at Mohacs, and the S.H.S. m aintaining its frontier offices at Bezdan and Batina, assu­rances have been given by the representatives of both Governments th a t there is no objection in principle to having these offices established a t a single place at 01 near the frontier. Such an arrangement is eminently desirable from the standpoint of Danube traffic. The navigation concerns of every country are interested in avoiding this double delay, which may involve, and frequently does involve, a delay of an entire day to a single tow of barges. In the course of a year this represents a very heavy loss to practically all the navigation companies. Since the rights of each S tate can be adequately protected by having inspections for both countries made at a single sta tion (for which there are numerous precedents elsewhere), it is earnestly recommended th a t the two countries prom ptly effect a reasonable arrangement for this purpose. While no insuperable obstacle appears to establishing a station immediately at the frontier, yet the conditions are not favourable ; the shores are low and subject to overflow ; the anchorage is not particularly favourable ; and there is no village at tha t precise point. Therefore, there is much to support the view th a t the m ost practical arrangement would be to establish a station at Batina, which is only 5 kilometers below the frontier, whereas Mohacs is 17 kilometers above the frontier. B atina is a com m unity of considerable size immediately on the river bank, while on the opposite bank Bezdan is a mere landing place, the community of Bezdan being

— 3 8 -

some kilometers from th e river. The S.H.S. representatives advise th a t they already have in prospect a plan which will admit of their own customs authorities and police authorities being on the same side of the river and a t the same place.

The Frontier Delays are increased by Attitude of the Local Functionaries.

U nder favourable circumstances, when a tow-boat reaches a frontier a t such an hour that w ithout any delay, the customs agents and police agents can transact the necessary formalities in the regular office hours, i.e. from 8 or 8.30 a.m. to 12 or 12.30, and from 2 or 2.30 p.m. to6 p.m ., th e formalities a t a particular frontier should not exceed from two to four hours. But these favourable conditions are by no means always realised. If a tow-boat arrives a t the frontier about the luncheon hour, it is likely to have to w ait until business is resumed in the afternoon before the formalities can begin. If the customs and police agents do not m ake their exami­nations concurrently, the delay will be increased. If the tow-boat arrives towards the close of business hours, after business hours, or on a holiday or a Sunday, the theory is th a t the customs and police agents are nevertheless under obligation to transact the requisite formalities upon th e paym ent of additional fees by the boat owners. B u t apparently this is not always true in practice, because the m atte r appears to depend to a substantia l ex ten t upon both the convenience and the goodwill of th e olficials. There are attached hereto as Annex V II some extracts from documents which have been subm itted in the course of this investigation, pur­porting to give actual instances of delays at frontiers. These are illustrative of what may, and apparently does, happen, regardless of the best intentions on the part of the responsible S ta te authorities.

I t is, oi course, no sufficient disposition of this m atte r for the Government authorities to say these delays are not due to its policy, bu t are due to shortcomings on the part of its agents. Is it no t a p a rt of the responsibility of the S tate to impress upon its agents th a t they must expedite traffic, and to supervise them sufficiently to make it unpleasant for them if they fail to do so ?

Requiring Boat-maslers to pay Fees for Services outside Office Hours puls Danube Navigationat a Disadvantage compared with the Railways.

I t would seem th a t traffic transported by rail is not subjected to any such possibilities of delay on account of convenience or inclination of customs agents, nor is railway traffic subjected to the special fees which appear to be imposed upon Danube traffic in connection with these formalities. Indeed, the very fact th a t the boat owners are requiied to pay the Government functionaries additional fees if work is done outside of regular office hours would seem to operate as a tem ptation to those functionaries to find excuses for not doing the work in regular office hours, thus again involving an element of additional delay as well as an element of additional cost. The question arises whether i t would not be in the interest of Danube navigation, placing i t more nearly on a footing where i t could compete satisfactorily with rail transportation, if the States should co-operate in establishing a system whereby officials who transact the frontier formalities would be m ore certainly accessible a t all hours and on holidays and Sundays at the cost of the State, instead of a t the cost of the navigation companies. This would seem to give th e navigation companies substantially the same benefits th a t are enjoyed by the railways. \ 1

Germany's Imposition of Customs Duties on Certain Ships' Supplies.

The German requirem ent imposing customs duties on ships’ supplies, especially fuel oil, if in excess of two days’ supply appears to deserve re-examination. It is certainly a most unfortunate precedent. If every S ta te on the Danube should a ttem pt to impose customs duties upon ships’ supplies in excess of some very restricted amount, the Danube navigation would be subjected to new and serious burdens. I t would seem th a t the prevailing requirement in Germany m ust have been devised solely from the standpoint of the convenience of the fiscal agencies of th e Government, and w ithout adequate regard to the fair interests of navigation.

— 39 —

The Convoy Syslem deserves Re-examination.

The burden of the system of requiring customs agents as convoys, the entire expenses for wages, lodging and subsistence to be paid by the navigation companies, is substantial and it is a burden which apparently finds no counterpart in the case of railway traffic. I t is w orthy of serious consideration whether the States would not find a t least as great a protection and probably more, in allowing the navigation companies the option of giving bonds ensuring against contraband and them placing the cargoes whenever possible under seal. Many deck loads not susceptible of being sealed consist of large articles, such as agricultural machines, which could not be successfully smuggled in any event. Inspections from tim e to tim e wrould soon disclose any substantial infractions of these bonds, and the bonds could provide for the imposition of heavy penalties for any such infractions. It is believed th a t companies giving such bonds would have such a direct interest in complying with the law and the terms of the bonds th a t the States would have an even greater assurance against contraband than exists under present condi­tions. In fact, i t is a serious question whether the protection derived from the customs agents travelling as convoys is not largely illusory. For 810 kilometers the Danube is the frontier between different States. Along all this distance no convoys are permissible. Y et the States find means of protecting their interests, not only w ithout convoys on the boats, but w ithout seals and w ithout bonds.

It should again be emphasised th a t Roum ania is satisfied to dispense w ith all customs formalities where the Danube crosses its frontier, i.e. a t Tutrakan, the eastern frontier of Bulgaria. The fact th a t Roum ania finds th a t its interests can be substantially protected by making its customs and police inspections in the port of destination is suggestive of the view that the elaborate and costly system of convoys does not justify itself.

Simplification of Documents.

It would apparently be advantageous to Governmental authorities and also to the naviga­tion companies if documents required a t frontiers were unified and simplified.

A uniform m anifest would appear to promote the convenience of all. The uniformity of the manifest ought to facilitate its translation into different languages to the ex ten t th a t that may continue to be insisted upon. A printed form could be drawn up so th a t little, if anything, would require to be transla ted except the specification of the articles in the cargo.

In general, the routine of frontier formalities deserves re-examination in order to see whether there are no t unnecessary documents or those which are needlessly long or needlessly different from forms in general use. Every S tate is interested in reducing these formalities to the minimum which will secure reasonable protection within practicable limits. Beyond this point formalities become no t only a needless burden upon navigation, bu t a needless expense to the State. To require unnecessary documents, or documents in unnecessary detail, is to increase the cost to the S tate directly and indirectly ; in the immediate work of the local func­tionaries and also in the supervision of their work by the Central Government. In making an inquiry into th e possibility of improving and simplifying routine frontier practices, it will probably be found th a t objections to making changes will be urged by functionaries who have become accustomed to present methods. This is the usual reaction of human nature to efforts to improve and simplify adm inistrative methods. Even though the reasons for certain compli­cated methods m ay have disappeared, nevertheless there m ay be insistence on continuing the methods. If im provem ent is to be brought about, it m ust be accomplished in spite of these routine objections and by re-examining the problem to ascertain just w'hat it is desirable and practicable to seek to accomplish and by limiting the requirements to th a t standard.

Delay in Customs Examination in Ports.

In addition to the frontier formalities, it is necessary to go through the real customs examination a t the po rt where the dues are paid, this being in general the port of destination or the port where the goods are placed in a customs warehouse. I t is likewise necessary in some countries to have a customs exam ination before the departure of the vessel in the port of origin.

40 —

While the delays resulting from these examinations are no t usually very great in the larger cities, there is sometimes difficulty in some places where the staff is very much reduced °in getting a p rom pt customs revision. This difficulty is made the more objectionable if there are a num ber of tows arriving a t or near the same time. I t is likewise reported th a t in the S.H.S S tate customs-houses are no t very numerous. This requires the transportation company to send to an adjoining tow n where there is a customs official before i t can discharge its cargo or clear. This condition is understood to be particularly bad on the Tisza, where i t is reported there is b u t one customs station, a t K ra tu r. I t would seem th a t this difficulty might be avoided by allowing the vessel to pay duty a t the frontier stations on goods for ports where there is no customs-house, or else require the frontier station upon notification to take the necessary measures to have a customs official a t the station on the arrival of the boat. On clearing, i t would seem th a t there should be no difficulty in carrying out these formalities at the frontier.

If the vessel arrives a t the p o rt after office hours or on Sundays or holidays, difficulty is likely to be encountered in arranging to get the necessary a ttention from the customs offices.

Germany a t Passau gives vessels the option of paying du ty there or a t the port of destination.

Passport Formalities.

As is the case w ith the customs formalities, there has been a considerable improvement in the requirem ents of the different D anube countries as to passports and other police forma­lities. I t is understood th a t a t present the severe restrictions which were a t first in vogue as to passports and visas for the crews of vessels have been entirely abolished and th a t these m en m ay now move freely in connection w ith their business, using only their service books au thenticated by officials of their companies as papers of identification.

In connection w ith the claim of foreign companies th a t a customs exam ination is made in Budapest, i t has also been sta ted th a t the papers of the crews m ust be examined by the police authorities in th a t port before the men can go ashore. No useful purpose can be seen in this practice, if in force, as all of the papers of the crews have already been passed by the H ungarian frontier police. If, for any reason, i t is necessary for the police to have a list of the foreigners in the city, i t would seem th a t the situation could be m et by the m aster furnish­ing to some designated person a simple list of his crew. Another m ethod would be to keep registers a t the various police stations in the po rt where members of the crew desiring to go ashore m ight have the ir names inscribed upon landing.

Although the service books are considered as sufficient as papers of identification for mem­bers of the crews of vessels, i t is understood th a t i t is still necessary for the shore employees,i.e. those on the staff and in the agencies of the companies, to be provided with a regular pass­p o rt and visas to move from the headquarters of the com pany to points in other countries. This s ta tem ent is subject to this qualification : an agreem ent exists between Germany, Austria and H ungary whereby a proper travel order issued by a navigation company is accepted as sufficient identification for members of agencies of companies flying flags of any one of those States. Czechoslovakia is believed to be included in this arrangem ent, although there is some doubt on th is point.

I t would be in the common in terest and convenience if all the riparian States would enter in to an agreem ent to th is effect. Such an arrangem ent would promote the convenience of th e navigation concerns of the down-river countries on all parts of the river, and it would prom ote the convenience of the up-river navigation concerns on the lower river.

Sanitary Formalities.

There appears to be a great varie ty of sanitary regulations in the different Danube countries. The m ethods of inspection and the m ethods of disinfection differ greatly. Article 40 of the D anube S ta tu te provides th a t the S tates shall endeavour by separate conventions to establish uniform sanitary and veterinary regulations concerning navigation. I t seems eminently desirable th a t steps should be in itiated in th e direction of bringing about such a convention. In all probability the discussion of these problems, with a view to establishing such a convention,

would bring about an approxim ation to a uniform system, with the result of ensuring even greater protection than the systems now observed, and a t the same tim e would represent a substan tia lly lighter burden upon navigation.

At tim es some of the existing sanitary regulations have effects upon Danube navigation which were doubtless never contemplated, and which could be remedied by making such a study as would perm it of considering the legitimate interests of Danube navigation. For example, it is understood tha t, as a sanitary measure, the im port into, or transport through, H ungary of Bulgarian straw is forbidden. One of the large items of Bulgarian exports is eggs. These are generally packed in straw. Bulgarian eggs find a large m arket in Germany, but, being packed in straw, they cannot be transported there by the Danube, so th a t this commerce becomes impracticable unless the transportation is made by sea or more costly containers are provided.

Frontier Formalities would not be avoided by creating Free Ports.

There is more or less discussion of establishing free ports where goods m ay be rehandled or manufactured and re-exported w ithout paym ent of customs duties in the country where the free po rt is located. Already an im portant free port has been projected and has been largely completed a t Budapest. Naturally, arrangements of this kind are a highly desirable facility for commerce.

But i t is im portan t to point out th a t the establishment of free ports will not relieve navi­gation of the burden of the frontier formalities. A t present, when Danube traffic crosses the frontier into a country, these frontier formalities are, generally speaking and as a practical matter, imposed by th a t country even when the traffic is merely transit traffic. Such formalities would be equally imposed by th a t country if the traffic were destined to a free port within its boundaries.

X II.

PORT FACILITIES.

In this case also there is no dispute as to questions of principle. All the States indicate an unhesitating desire and purpose to carry out the provisions of the Danube S tatu te , which declares th a t :

“ in respect of access to and the use of ports and their equipment the subjects,goods and flags of all Powers are treated on a footing of complete e q u a l i ty ”(Art. 10).

Article 20 declares th a t :

“ ports and their m achinery and equipment shall be accessible to navigation and utilisable w ithout distinction in respect of flag, country of origin or of destination, and w ithout preferential trea tm en t.”

It is not unnatu ra l th a t various questions in the actual utilisation of ports should remain undisposed of. The changes in sovereignty and the increase in the number and nationalities of navigation companies have created the necessity for various new arrangements as to the use of space in th e principal ports.

— 42

The S. H. S. S tate presents a general sta tem ent of its position as follows :

“ The S. H. S. Navigation Company finds itself in a precarious situation, not having its own warehouses in foreign countries and having to use private warehouses where it is not always possible to obtain the necessary space. I t often finds itself in a position of being unable to unload its barges, which m ust move away in order to obtain th e necessary facilities. I t is useless to say how much damage this situa­tion has caused. Our navigation company complains constantly of the situation which is created on account of this fact in the Upper Danube ports above Bezdan ” (last S. H. S. port), “ all the more so as foreign navigation is trea ted in our ports from this point oi view on a footing of perfect equality. As an example, in our principal port of debarkation — the port of Belgrade — barges are discharged according to th e order of their arrival w ithout regard to their nationality. It is therelore indis­pensable for the S. H. S. Navigation to be able to obtain suitable ground in the ports of Budapest, Vienna, Passau, Ratisbon and Bratislava, to be able to construct its own warehouses. ”

Czechoslovakia urges th a t its navigation company “ m ust also have its own harbour equipm ent in th e other Danube ports, because as it is now it finds itself a t great disadvantage when competing w ith the other companies who have their own equipm ent everywhere, and are thus more able to get and hold trade

A ustria and H ungary are concerned about their present and future s ta tus in the Czecho­slovak ports and about their present s ta tus in the S. H. S. and Boum anian ports.

I t is desirable to discuss separately the situation in the various countries.

Germany.

Ratisbon. — The water front along the river and the w ater front and structures around the basin are owned by the State, which leases sections thereof to the shipping companies. The D. D. S. G. owns its own ground and buildings along the river bank. One of the ware­houses on the basin is leased by the S ta te to th e City and is operated by the la t te r ; it is capable of supplying services to companies who do not own or have not taken leases of facilities. The S. H. S. Syndicate now uses the City W arehouse, which seems to be large enough to handle all of the Syndicate’s business, and this is confirmed by the la t te r’s President. This warehouse is well equipped in all respects.

Passau. — Here the shipping companies actually own the w ater front and warehouses on th e basin, while the S ta te owns th e w ater front and quay along the river bank, and has leased parts thereof to the D. D. S. G., Siid-Deutsche and M. F . T. R ., which companies have erected their own warehouses. The S. H. S. Syndicate applied for space, and the German Government required the M. F. T . B. to allow the warehouses owned by i t on the river bank to be used by the S. H. S. Syndicate. The Czechoslovak Company has an arrangement with the Bavarian Lloyd, bu t in the last few days has indicated a desire to be perm itted in addition to ren t the quay now used for th e town coal-yard, and also a boat-length of ground for the erection of a store-house. I t does not appear th a t requests for such space have been presented to the German Government, nor has there been any opportunity to obtain the views of the la tte r in regard to the suggestion.

Austria.

L inz. — In Linz the w ater front belongs directly to the Government or to some subsidiary branch thereof. The D. D. S. G., the Siid-Deutsche and M. F. T R. warehouses are on land belonging to the Government and to th e railway adm inistration. Czechoslovakia in the last few days has suggested th a t its navigation com pany should be allowed to m ake use of the plat­form and the building now occupied by the railway management. It does not appear that such request has been presented to the A ustrian authorities, nor has there been any opportunity to obtain their views.

Vienna. — The to ta l quay in Vienna is 14,017 meters long, 12,337 meters thereof belonging to the Danube Regulation Commission and 674 m eters belonging to the railway administration.

506 meteis appear to be in private hands, and are probably used for industrial and not shipping pm poses. The w ater front around the Freudenau basin is 6,200 meters, and is owned entirely by the Danube Regulation Commission. This Commission is now controlled one-half by Vienna, one-third by th e Central Government and one-sixth by Lower Austria. This Commission makes leases of the water front to navigation companies, which erect the necessary structures upon the leased premises. Leases to foreign companies are understood to be ordin­arily subject to term ination on one year’s notice. In addition, landing places and ware­houses are m aintained by public au thority for general public use.

The S. H. S. Syndicate now has under lease a part of the quay, which was rented before the war to the. Royal Serbian S. S. Co. This part of the quay is 105 meters long and 70 meters wide. The rental is understood to be 75,000 crowns (gold) per annum. It is understood that in addition the S. H. S. Syndicate tents a part of a Siid-Deutsche warehouse, and also has an arrangement w ith the Czechoslovak Company for the use from time to time of a p a rt of the quay space now used by the latter company. The S. H. S. Syndicate appears to regard its present quay space as unsatisfactory, both as to size and location. It claims th a t i t has a s k e d the Austrian Government for a lease ot the adjoining land now used lot the m ilitary swim­ming school, and states th a t ii this could be obtained it would be satisfied with its facilities. The Austrian representatives, however, claim th a t they have given to the S. H. S. interests a l l that the la tte r have asked for. If the S.H.S. Syndicate is still desirous of obtaining other facilities, it would seem th a t it or the S.H.S. Government should now make formal application to the Austrian Government and pursue the m atter to a conclusion.

The Czechoslovak Company now has the use of 2,172 square meters of one of the public warehouses, and also the use of quay space tor three barge-lengths in front of one of the public warehouses. It claims th a t this ai rangement is unsatisfactory, because the labour cost in the public warehouse is very high. This Company also has an arrangement for using space in one of the Süd-Deutsche warehouses for about 600 tons of cargo. The Company and its Government have been for a long tim e in negotiation with the Austrian authorities for other facilities. The situation now appears to be th a t, after the making and rejection ot various olfers and counter-offers, the Austrian Government has indicated a willingness to cause a lease terminable on one year’s notice to be made to the Czechoslovak Company for a part of the public landing space near Florisdorf Bridge, this being a section of the quay 210 meters in length and 50 to 60 meters in width, th a t company undertaking : (a) to pay an annual rental of 45 gold hellers per square m eter ; (b) to build its own warehouse according to certain specifications and within a specified time ; (c) to pay the cost cf equipping a corresponding landing-place for the Danube Regulation Commission to be used as a public landing-place, and the cost of building a road thereto , such last-m entioned costs amounting to 20,000 gold crowns.

The controlling point of disagreement now appears to be th a t the Czechoslovak interests are not willing to incur such heavy costs on the faith of a lease which will be terminable a t one year’s notice. B ut Czechoslovakia also suggests th a t it would much prefer to negotiate an arrangement which, instead of requiring it to build new facilities, would give it the use of some of the existing facilities on reasonable terms. There is much in favour of this suggestion. The port facilities a t Vienna are greatly in excess of the present business. It seems a serious waste of capital to add still further facilities. The Austrian shipping interests are not enjoying an adequate return from their shipping business. It would therefore seem to be to their advan t­age to make an at rangement whereby, in return for the use of a portion of their facilities which they do not need, they would receive an additional rental through making a lease to the Czecho­slovak Company. It is evident, as will be mentioned below in discussing port facilities in Czechoslovakia, th a t the Czechoslovak Company’s demands in Austria cannot be brought to a conclusion except in connection with consideration of the Austrian company’s demands for facilities in Bratislava.

Czechoslovakia.

The general principle is th a t the Czechoslovak Government owns or will acquire the entire quay and w ater front.

— 44 —

A t Bratislava, the Government has made m odern and valuable improvements in the wav of warehouses, port installations, etc., and has intelligently and energetically tried to provide convenient facilities for the rapidly growing river traffic. The Government deserves great praise for w hat i t has accomplished.

While a t times statem ents are made indicating th a t i t is the policy of the Government itself to operate these facilities and to afford therein equal trea tm en t to all, the fact is th a t the Governm ent allocates these facilities to a greater or less ex ten t to specific interests. For example, three of the warehouses built for the Government (very modern and commodious and apparently in the best perm anent location) have been allocated to the Czechoslovak Com­pany, and th a t company operates these warehouses w ith its own employees.

The M .F.T.R. had some arrangem ent equivalent to a lease from the Hungarian railways expiring in 1933. The Czechoslovak Government has acquired the land and the Czechoslovak railway adm inistration claims to succeed to the lessee rights of the Hungarian railways. The M .F.T.R . claims ownership of the buildings. The entire m atte r is in litigation. Meanwhile by tem porary agreement, the M .F.T.B. uses p a rt of the p lan t (a small administrative build­ing and one warehouse) and the Czechoslovak railway adm inistration uses the other part (a somewhat larger warehouse).

The D.D.S.G. facilities are upon land leased to i t by the city. The State, in order to carry out its policy of owning the entire quay and w ater front, has started condemnation proceedings, by virtue of which the land will pass into the ownership of the State this year, and the final extension of the D.D.S.G. lease will expire this year. The Government is anxious that the D.D.S.G. Company shall move to another location, because the existing location (imme­diately in front of the Ministry) is inconvenient to the Ministry, and besides i t is the desire of the city to establish a satisfactory passenger term inal a t th a t point.

I t would seem th a t the Czechoslovak a ttitude towards the D.D.S.G. facilities in Brati­slava, and the A ustrian a ttitude towards the Czechoslovak Company in Vienna, m ust neces­sarily be considered together. This now seems to be understood by the two Governments. Their exchanges of views, however, have been rather infrequent. The thing to be done is to m ake a reasonable compromise. Each side has an ample consideration to offer to the other. The negotiations have been exceedingly slow and there does not seem to have been a clear definition of w hat the Czechoslovak Government is willing to assure the A ustrian Company in Bratislava. I t would seem highly desirable for the representatives of the two Governments and of the two shipping interests to confer prom ptly and completely, and i t is believed the result will be a reasonable compromise.

The Czechoslovak authorities indicate th a t the ultim ate desire is to bring about the allo­cation of space to the D.D.S.G., and apparently also to the M .F.T.R., on the winter har­bour. These locations would be satisfactory for railway interchange traffic, b u t not for local traffic, because not accessible to ordinary roads. If the D.D.S.G. and M.F.T.R. had no facilities except in the w inter harbour, they would have to do their local business through the public warehouse, while the Czechoslovak Company would handle its local business through warehouses specially allocated to it and operated by its own employees, and directly accessible to the city streets.

Hungary.

A t Budapest, the quays are partly the property of the State Government and partly the property of the S tate railways. The p a r t belonging to the State Government has in general been turned over to the city, which makes leases to shipping companies. I t is understood th a t these leases are made for a sufficiently long time to enable the companies to build their own warehouses.

The only controversy a t Budapest appears to be th a t when the Bavarian Lloyd, which is situated on the river bank below the Czechoslovak Company, applied for more space, the muni- pality directed the Czechoslovak Company to move to a considerably less desirable location fu rthe r upstream. Below the Bavarian Lloyd space is the property of the Siid-Deutsche. This concern now belongs to the D.D.S.G. and the M .F.T.R. The Süd-Deutsche boats were practically all taken away after the war, and its business in Budapest appears to be small

— 45 —

The C zechoslovak Company therefore suggested th a t the Bavarian Lloyd be given a p a rt of the Siid-Deutsche facilities. This suggestion was refused, and the Czechoslovak Company was summarily ordered to move to the less desirable location further upstream. Subsequently this order was rescinded, and the latest advices are th a t the Czechoslovak Company will not be required to move. This is certainly to be desired, because i t would appear th a t the Czecho­slovak Company would be subjected to substantial prejudice by being required to make such a move. Furtherm ore, it seems in the general interest of economy of space to utilise to the greatest extent existing facilities a t Budapest, where the facilities appear to be in excess of the needs of the traffic, ra ther than to force companies to construct additional facilities.

The S.H.S. State.

While the S.H.S. S tate has shown remarkable energy and resourcefulness in re-establish­ing and improving its systems of communication since the war, it appears th a t i t has been compelled to concentrate its efforts upon its railways, because when the new Kingdom came into existence its railway communications were very poorly adapted to the needs of the country. Its policy appears to have been wise and praiseworthy, bu t the result has been th a t the Govern­ment has been able to do practically nothing for the proper equipment of its ports. Since the Government has also proceeded on the general theory th a t i t will eventually own and operate all the port facilities throughout the Kingdom, there has been great reluctance to make even provisional arrangements whereby navigation companies could provide their own port facilities. While some exceptions have been made (e.g., a warehouse a t Novi Sad has been leased to the Czechoslovak Company), the general result has been to prevent the use of private facilities, although the State was not in a position a t once to afford public facilities.

There is a very inadequate num ber of pontons in use, because the State does not own enough pontons to satisfy all the requirements, and yet it is reluctant to perm it navigation companies to provide even tem porarily their own pontons. The D. D. S. G. and the M. F. T. B. have pontons which they would be glad to use if permitted. A t Zemun, a place of much im ­portance, there is need for more pontons, bu t the D. D. S. G. is permitted to use only one of its own, being required to use the extremely busy S. H. S. pontons for all its other business. Prior to the war the M. F. T. R. claims to have maintained in the territory now under S. H. S. sovereignty 35 stations w ith pontons, bu t a t present it is perm itted to m ain tain only four stations, and has pontons a t its separate disposal a t only three of them.

The Government indicates a definite purpose to enter upon a plan of adequate port development, and to provide facilities which will be ample for all shipping, both domestic and foreign. But, of course, the realisation of this plan is far in the future. In the meantime the S. H. S. State is growing so rapidly in business and commerce th a t i t seriously needs much more ample po rt facilities. In the circumstances the most practical way to promote the com­merce of the State would seem to be for the State to make provisional arrangements with navi­gation companies, perm itting them to use their own pontons and obtain the use of warehouses, subject to term ination when the State itself shall have provided ample State facilities.

Another disadvantage of the present tem porary situation is th a t to a large ex ten t the port facilities now supplied by the State are not operated by it bu t are turned over by i t to be operated by the S. H. S. Syndicate, which is a privately managed concern, although the State has a large interest in the profits. For example, all the S tate’s pontons are operated by the S. H. S. Syndicate. In the numerous ports where there is no port captain, the use of the pontons is regulated by the S. H. S. Syndicate agent. Thus, im portant interests of all other shipping companies are com m itted to their competitor, the S. H. S. Syndicate.

This investigation has not disclosed the slightest purpose or desire on the part of the S. H. S. State to subject foreign navigation companies to any inequality in the use of port facilities (except a t Belgrade for reasons discussed below). The present situation arises simply because facilities are inadequate and the S tate’s resources have had to be devoted first to other even more pressing dem ands — the outgrowth of the extraordinary need for reconstruction after the war.

— 46 —

Present conditions therefore are intended to be only temporary. B u t the State has already as a pa rt of this tem porary policy, perm itted certain navigation companies to establish provisionally their own port facilities in a few ports. I t is earnestly recommended that this procedure be extended much further in the in terest of the enlargement of port facilities, until the S tate shall itself be able to construct and itself directly operate facilities of its own, suffi- ciently ample to provide for the great commerce which the S tate’s great resources and great energy are going to create in increasing measure. This would also promote the interests of the S. H. S. Syndicate, because i t would then be able to get a much larger proportionate use ou t of existing facilities. A t present i t has to divide these facilities with all o ther shipping inte­rests, and in consequence is greatly hampered in conducting satisfactorily and economically its rapidly growing business.

5. II . S. State exclusion of foreign agents of navigation companies.

In a num ber of instances foreign shipping companies have been required to dismiss their representatives or employees in S. H. S. State who are not S. H. S. nationals. The Czechoslo­vak and the Süd-Deutsche Companies received about the middle of May 1925 orders that their agents and such of their assistants as were not of S. H. S. nationality m ust leave the country within six months, and orders to similar effect were given to the D. D. S. G. in respect of certain A ustrian cranesmen.

I t is explained by the S. H. S. representatives th a t these orders have been given in pursuance of a law of February 28th, 1925, which was no t directed prim arily a t navigation, bu t for the general protection of workmen. Art. 103 of this law says :

“ No contractor m ay bring in foreign workmen w ithout having obtained the authorisation of the Minister of Social Welfare, who m ay give his consent after having requested the advice of the Labour Exchange and the proper Labour Unions. ”

I t has not been made clear th a t this law applies to business representatives of all com­panies, including their confidential agents, or th a t it applies to persons who were in the State prior-to the tim e the law took effect. B u t in any event it is clear th a t the law was not directed against navigation, and th a t i t contains provision for making exceptions to it. I t is therefore to be hoped th a t the State, w ithout em barrassm ent to its general policy of workm en’s protection, will find a way to relieve the agents and employees of the foreign shipping companies of these provisions. Foreign shipping companies will be subjected to serious hindrance if their agents and employees cannot be men who have been trained in the com pany’s own administration, and th a t means th a t ordinarily they m ust be of the same nationality as the company. It seems alm ost a contradiction in term s to say th a t navigation of the Danube and access to its ports are free to the companies of all nations, and yet to say th a t nobody bu t nationals of a particular S tate can ac t for those companies in the ports of th a t State. I t would be a m ost unfortunate incident in the adm inistration of the In ternational Danube if such a precedent should be estab­lished. If established, i t would be likely to lead to retaliation, which would react upon the S. H. S. Syndicate itself. T ha t Syndicate has a rapidly growing business, and is meeting with deserved success in establishing itself in other parts of the river, and would feel with increasing em barrassm ent the application to it of such a lim itation by other States.

By Article 20 of the Danube Statu te, each riparian State assumes the obligation that it will not hinder navigation companies from establishing on its territory the agencies necessary for the exercise of their business, subject to the observance of the laws and regulations of the country.

The claim that Belgrade is a territorial and not an international port.

The principal Danube port in the S. H. S. State is Belgrade. This city has had a remark­able development since the war. Its aspect has been greatly changed and improved by the numerous and im portan t buildings which have been constructed in the last three or four years The enterprise shown in this m atte r is a great credit to the energy and resourcefulness of the people in the face of exceptional difficulties. The city is bonnd to m ake great additional pro­gress on account of the extensive resources — agricultural and mineral — of the country.

The port facilities are inadequate in the extreme for the rapidly growing business. This inadequacy m ust be a great burden upon the industry and commerce of the State, entailing labour costs and delays which would not be incurred if there were adequate facilities. Expla­nation has been made above of the reasons which have prevented the adequate development of port facilities a t Belgrade as well as a t other S. H. S. stations, bu t the situation a t Belgrade gives special emphasis to the fact tha t, until adequate port facilities can be constructed by the State, it would be to the clear interest of the business of the city and indeed of the entire country to make provisional arrangem ents with individual shipping companies whereby the la tte r could use their own pontons, provide additional warehouse space and in general diminish the present handicap upon the economical conduct of the business of the port.

A special question arises in this connection. Although Belgrade is on the Danube and is so regarded for all economic and financial purposes, it is also on the Save. It happens th a t the present landing facilities are principally on the Save about 400 meters from the junction of the Save and the Danube. The Save being a territorial and not an international river, the po rt authorities a t Belgrade take the position th a t foreign shipping has not the right to use the landing places or the other facilities of the port except when specially permitted and upon the payment of double taxes. After the war it appears th a t for a while the port authorities did not allow foreign passenger boats to discharge or to take on any international passengers. Now it appears th a t the D. D. S. G. through service between Vienna and Giurgiu is perm itted to discharge and take on international passengers at Belgrade. The M. F. T. R. has sought also to make arrangements for its passenger boats to take on and discharge international passengers a t Belgrade, but this has not y e t been arranged. For a time after the war the port authorities did not permit foreign companies either to discharge or to load freight traffic a t Belgrade. Now it is understood th a t foreign companies are permitted, on special application, to discharge cargo coming from other countries, bu t are not permitted to take on cargo. But whenever any use is made of the Belgrade port facilities by foreign companies, the authorities impose double the port taxes which are imposed upon domestic shipping.

Discussion with the S. H . S. representatives did not indicate th a t in practice the S tate attaches great importance to th e exclusion of foreign shipping from Belgrade or to the subjection of foreign shipping to double taxation. I t was explained th a t there is extremely little outbound freight traffic from Belgrade, since Smederevo and Zemun are the principal ports for export traffic and th a t access for inbound traffic is not denied in practice. The taxes do not appear to produce an im portan t revenue.

The State of course can a t all t imes make clear its stand on the principle th a t the Save is territorial and no t international, and a t the same time, in practice, can make such arrangements as are in the interests of the port of Belgrade. Viewing the m atter from the standpoint of the present and future interests of Belgrade, it is assumed th a t the conclusion will soon be reached by the S. H. S. authorities th a t a port of such importance and of such great potentialities for the future cannot afford to have itself advertised as not being as completely on the Danube as is Budapest or Vienna.i*N There are also some port facilities on the Danube side of the city. It is represented th a t these are less satisfactory because of high winds a t certain times from the north and east. I t is believed, however, th a t the city of Belgrade w ould not be willing, on account of this condition, to deprive itself of being a Danube port in the fullest sense of the term, when a few meters away from the Danube i t is practicable to afford shipping facilities as good and as free from discrimina­tion as those afforded in the D anube ports of other countries.

A somewhat similar question arises as to Pancsova. I t is on the Temes, a territorial river and is about 3 km. from the Danube. A t present Pancsova is treated exclusively as a territorial port. It is an im portan t place bu t it is no t permitted to have the benefit of foreign shipping on the Danube, although in the past its success as a port must have been due largely to its access to the Danube and to its having the benefit of Danube shipping in general. Apparently there has been an effort on the p a rt of the business interests of Pancsova to overcome this handicap by building a landing-place on the Danube. B ut this is subject to overflow at high water and even at other times subjects the business interests of Pancsova to an expansive movement of the traffic to the Danube landing-place.

— 48 —

Roumania.

Roum ania has displayed the most creditable enterprise in the construction of ample quavs a t all its principal ports and, indeed, has shown judgm ent and foresight in its handling of river im provem ent in general.

I t is understood tha t, as a general rule, Roum ania retains the control and operation of its ports as a strictly S tate business, conducting the same prim arily through the N. F. R ., the State shipping concern. In this way Roum ania reserves exclusive control of the harbour'installations and then places the same a t the disposal of shipping w ithout giving particular companies any private landing places or warehouses. The D. D. S. G. has a section of the quay in Giurgiu and a very small warehouse in th a t place, b u t has no ponton.

While the D. D. S. G. owns its own installations in Orsova and Temesvar, it is notallowed to place pontons in front of them, so it is prevented from using them for its business. The M. F. T. R. has a ponton of its own only a t Giurgiu.

The Roum anian authorities have explained th a t there is a great shortage of pontons. They have indicated tha t, while formerly some objection was offered in a t least one specific instance to a shipping company placing its own ponton, a t present there is no objection in point of principle to making arrangements of this sort w ith shipping companies. The State, however, imposes a condition tha t, after the lapse of a specified num ber of years, the ponton will become the property of the State. I t is hoped therefore th a t foreign shipping companies which have pontons which will be available for such use, will be able to negotiate reasonable arrangements so as to increase the ponton facilities in Roumania.

As to Braila and Galatz, the situation appears to be unreasonable from the standpoint of foreign river shipping companies. The available facilities for river shipping are now almost entirely devoted to the use of the Roum anian S tate shipping concern and the Roumanian shipping companies. The Roum anian representative explained th a t this is necessary because the expansion of the Roum anian shipping interests is such as to take up all the available space, and besides there is a shortage of pontons. This results in forcing the foreign companies, notably the D. D. S. G. and the M. F. T. R., to use ocean docks for their river boats. They repre­sent th a t this is decidedly disavantageous because the docks were designed for the use of ocean-going steamers, and th a t in using the ocean docks it is necessary to keep a tug under steam for the purpose of prom ptly shifting the barges. The Roum anian authorities state that they are try ing to remedy this condition, and have in m ind making an effort to arrange for each two of the foreign companies to use j ointly a single ponton.

The Roum anian representatives do not assert any claim of right to discriminate against the foreign shipping companies in the use of facilities a t Braila and Galatz. I t is obviously a difficult situation b u t i t is believed the only solution will be for the Roum anian authorities to find some way to give the foreign companies equal trea tm ent w ith the S tate shipping concern and their S tate shipping companies.

I t appears th a t a t Giurgiu there is a contract between the stevedores and the harbour au th o ritie s w hich provides th a t the stevedores shall work for the N . F. R . a t 20 per cent less than for companies under foreign flags. The explanation given of this arrangement is th a t the N . F. R. is able to assure more steady employment for the stevedores than is the case w ith reference to foreign shipping. I t seems evident th a t an arrangem ent of this cha­racter involves the danger of substantial discrimination against foreign shipping, and it cer­ta in ly is an undesirable precedent. Although there is no reason to believe th a t this particular arrangem ent was prom pted by any considerations other than those of economic differences, nevertheless, if such arrangements should become general, it would be impossible to prevent their becoming the cloak for various forms of un just discrimination in favour of domestic companies.

Bulgaria.

In this country all companies are allowed to have their own pontons and landing facilities.

It is reported th a t Bulgaria makes a reduction of 50 per cent on the harbour dues in favour of boats flying the Bulgarian flag and registered in some Bulgarian Danube port. The

Bulgarian officials claim th a t the tonnage under their flag is very small and th a t this has not operated particularly to the disadvantage of the foreign shipping companies. It is, however, not in conformity with the Danube S tatute, which requires th a t such dues are to be levied in accordance with the same schedule for all flags.

The D. D. S. G. claim th a t the companies themselves cannot handle goods from ship to rail direct but tha t, in accordance with special regulations in Bulgaria, this type of work can be carried out only by a customs forwarding agent duly licensed by the State authorities. This company states th a t the rates charged by these forwarding agents are in excess of w hat they would be able to do the work for themselves. This is emphatically denied by the Bul­garian authorities who state th a t the necessity for employing such an agent could not arise, except for a vessel entering Bulgarian waters for the first time and employing such an agent because the master was not familiar with the port regulations.

The D. D. S. G. has also stated th a t the Bulgarian authorities have recently required them to remove their ponton a t Somovit and to substitute one not in excess of 25 meters in length. The D. D. S. G. claims th a t it would be dangerous for large boats to land against such a small ponton. The Bulgarian authorities, however, state th a t the D. D. S. G. ponton will be left in its present position and th a t the question has been decided in a manner tha t can bu t give full satisfaction to the D. D. S. G.

Port Dues.

So far as these have been officially reported, they appear in Annex VI.

X III.

LIENS ON VESSELS.

It appears th a t a t present no completely satisfactory scheme of laws exists along the Danube to ensure giving effect to liens placed upon tugs, barges and other floating material for the purpose of securing loans.

In the existing state of law, it is by no means clear th a t a lien created upon a vessel for the purpose of securing a loan (even if the law of the State in which the vessel is registered provides for the creation of such a lien), will be respected in other riparian States in whose territory the vessel m ay find itself from time to time and in which claims may be asserted against it.

In such circumstances i t would seem to be clearly in the common interests of all the ripa­rian States to join in a convention which would bring about the necessary legal provisions to ensure the validity, in all the riparian States, of a lien duly created upon a vessel in the State in which th a t vessel is registered. I t is frequently the case th a t navigation companies need additional working capital which they could borrow on much better terms if they could give satisfactory security therefor. Again, it will no doubt be found essential, in the development of navigation, for the various navigation companies to acquire modern equipment, especially the most modern tugs and self-propelled barges. All such operations will be distinctly facilitated if the navigation companies are in a position to give liens upon their vessels which will be recognised everywhere as valid.

The Danube S tatu te provides in Article 40 th a t the signatory States shall endeavour by separate conventions to establish uniform civil and commercial regulations relative to the exercise of navigation and to shipping contracts.

It is understood th a t already efforts are being made to promote this highly desirable con­dition of uniformity. In practically all these m atters uniformity will be an additional pro­tection to each State because the more uniform are the regulations, the more certain and easy will be their enforcement. "Without implying any lack of appreciation of the extreme desirability of achieving this uniformity in all the m atters referred to in the article cited, the specific suggestion of uniform provisions on liens on vessels is urged as worthy of the co-operation of the States.

— 50 —

XIV.

STATISTICS.

The absence of statistics for Danube navigation has already been mentioned. From the outset the present study has been handicapped by a lack of accurate data on the subjects covered by it. Statistics in no two countries seem to be made on the same basis, and those that are kept are frequently fragm entary. It is believed th a t the interest of all will be directly pro­moted by creating a system of statistics on a uniform basis pertaining to the various items of interest to shipping on the river, such as physical data and data on the volume and character of freight and passenger traffic transported.

W ith full recognition of the fact th a t each State has its own special interests to promote in the m atte r of Danube navigation, it is also true th a t all the States have a common interest in seeing th a t navigation is not impaired either by physical obstacles or by other burdens placed upon navigation or by excessive competition of other routes of travel. The only way for the States to have reliable information to enable them to estimate satisfactorily the actual state of navigation and to explore the causes of impairments thereof is to have reliable statistics, available with reasonable promptness after the conclusion of each calendar year, showing the facts as to the traffic, freight and passengei, carried on the river.

I t would seem th a t no comprehensive project for the improvement of the river could be intelligently established w ithout the full knowledge of the actual physical conditions of the river and w ithout adequate general statistics showing the volume, origin and destination of traffic and the means and method by which it is carried.

The only approxim ate general statistics which have been obtainable for the present report have been statistics of tons carried. It would be far more satisfactory if, in addition to tons carried, there could also be figures of the ton kilometers. Statistics of passengers carried and of passenger kilometers are likewise desirable. I t would probably be feasible and, if so, desirable to show, along the lines of a broad classification, the character of the tonnage carried, and from w hat country and to w hat country the various classes are carried. The suggestion has been offered th a t in view of the variety of languages and the variety of alphabets in the ripa­rian States, it would be feasible and desirable to develop a system for the collection of statis­tics which could be expressed wholly or almost wholly in the form of charts which, on their face and w ithout translation, would be equally understandable in all the riparian countries.

Of course, no more can be done here than to bring up the possibilities for consideration in respect of the desirability of certain sorts of statistics. It will be for the representatives of the States, with full knowledge of the situation, to decide what is desirable and feasible.

I t is understood th a t in the past some objection has been offered to the creation of such statistics because it has been said th a t to call for these would involve some infringement of the sovereignty of the respective States. I t is difficult to see how this argum ent can be sound, since the States, by arranging through their representatives for the compilation of the statis­tics, would thereby give the support of their sovereignty to the work in question. A State undertakes to do m any things in co-operation with other States, and the exercise of its sove­reignty for such a purpose should not be regarded as an infringement upon th a t sovereignty.

I t is believed th a t reasonable and highly useful statistics could be assembled and published in such a m anner as not to involve any invasion of the reasonable privacy of the business of the various shipping companies. Indeed, those statistics would be of immense value to those companies. Certainly in other parts of the world transportation statistics are currently obtained from transporta tion interests which are in continual and intense competition a n d yet the reason­able rights of privacy of the particular transporta tion interests are not regarded as injuriously invaded thereby. In the United States, for example, statistics have long been obtained from the various railway companies which are always aggressively competing with each other. Not only are these statistics accepted as entirely compatible with the rights of the particular com­panies, bu t they are regarded by all the companies as having very great value to them.

In this connection attention is invited to the precedent already set by the Central Commis­sion for Rhine Navigation. This Commission publishes yearly a book of extremely useful

•— 51 —

statistics, which are considered valuable by all concerned. There has been no question here th a t the sovereignty of the riparian States has been impaired, or th a t the rights of particular naviga­tion companies have been injured.

For the Danube, a t present, the only statistics available are those of the International Commission and of the European Commission. Tables are included in Annex II to illustrate the character of the statistics compiled by the two Danube Commissions. It will be seen from them that the statistics for the Iron Gates show the tonnage of the vessels upstream and down­stream, and give an analysis of the cargo, showing the number of tons and the character. The European Commission publishes y e a r ly , in booklet form and as annexes to its book of proto­cols, tables showing a great variety of interesting information as to vessels using the maritime Danube and as to the volume and character of goods exported. Up to the end of 1924, no statistics have been published by the European Commission on imports, except fragm entary data on coal. It is understood th a t the Commission is now collecting information on imports, and that it will be able in the future to give such information. It would also seem to be desirable for the Commission to in d ic a te th e origin and destination of the merchandise imported and exported.

XV.

INTERNATIONAL DANUBE COMMISSION.

(C. I. D.)

This Commission was created first under Article 286 of the Treaty of Trianon and the corresponding articles of the other Peace Treaties. The Commission has continued under the Danube S ta tu te (which became effective on October 1st, 1922) for the purpose of seeing to the carrying out of its provisions. The following States were parties to the Convention instituting th a t S ta tu te :

Austria, Great Britain,Belgium, Greece,Bulgaria, Hungary,Czechoslovakia, ItalyFrance, Roumania,Germany. Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

By this Convention, these States obligated themselves to adopt and carry out the provi­sions set forth in the Danube S tatu te . The members of the International Commission are the representatives of the signatory States to ensure the carrying into practical effect of the obligations which those States thus assumed. The Commission is composed of two repre­sentatives of the German riparian States (Bavaria and W urtemberg), and one representative each of the other riparian States, and one representative each of the non-riparian States repre­sented on the European Danube Commission, th a t is, a t present, France, Great Britain and Italy.

General Outline of the Commission’s Responsibility.

To obtain a general idea of the responsibilities which the signatory States have undertaken to discharge and of the functions which they have conferred upon the International Commission for the purpose of promoting the full discharge of those obligations, a brief summary (which is intended to be merely suggestive rattier than exhaustive) of the provisions of the Danube Statute, with particular reference to the duties of the International Commission, will be helpful.

The Commission is created to see to the carrying out of the provisions of the Statu te in respect to the internationalised Danube river system, as defined in the Statute, for the whole of the navigable p a rt of th a t system above Braila. The Commission is to assure freedom of navigation and equality of trea tm ent of all flags ; is responsible th a t no obstacle shall be placed

— 52 —

by any S ta te on unrestricted navigation ; th a t access to the ports is equal to all and that the international character of the river system suffers no prejudice.

The Commission is required to draw up a general plan of improvement works for the river system, and also to decide w hether each riparian S ta te’s annual programme of current main­tenance and im provem ent conforms to the requirements of navigation, and, if necessary, to modify the same. The Commission is to see th a t the programmes are carried out and* if necessary, m ay do such work itself. If current m aintenance by a S tate substantially exceeds w hat its own traffic requires, th e Commission m ay distribute the expense and ensure settle­m ent. As to im provem ent works, the Commission, to cover costs, m ay authorise moderate navigation dues based on shipping tonnage (but no t on the goods carried) and m ay itself impose such dues if it carries out such works itself. W here the States fail to agree on the execution of the necessary works and the apportionm ent of the expenditure, the Commission shall decide.

The S ta tu te makes numerous provisions requiring the equal imposition of Customs and taxes of all kinds, equal trea tm en t in ports as to access, loading and discharging ; declares : (a) that port taxes for public loading and discharging m ust correspond to the expense of construction, m aintenance and operation ; (6) th a t navigation companies shall not be hindered in establishing necessary agencies, subject to the S ta te’s laws and regulations ; (c) th a t transport shall be open to all (subject to qualifications as to internal transport) ; (d) th a t transport traffic shall be free (subject to the right to enforce certain precautionary measures when both shores belong to the same country). The Commission’s general obligation to ensure freedom of navigation and absence of obstacles, of course, imposes upon i t grave responsibilities as to all these matters. The Commission is also to draw up shipping and police regulations for the waterway.

The S ta tu te requires the Commission to establish a perm anent Secretariat, a Technical D epartm ent, a Navigation Service, and an Accounting and Tax Controlling Department. In the Iron Gates Section, Roum ania and the S. H. S. State, w ith the Commission, are required to set up a special technical and adm inistrative service. The Commission is to decide the measures for upkeep and improvement of th is section, and the dues to m eet the expenditure, and as to regulating the working of the services.

The Commission determines its procedure, m ust have a quorum of two-thirds, and decisions m ust be taken by a m ajority vote of two-thirds of the members present. Questions of inter­preta tion and application of the S ta tu te m ust be subm itted to the Commission, the respective States having certain powers of subm itting the Commission’s decisions to the special jurisdiction set up for th a t purpose by the League of Nations.

The foregoing summ ary, while incomplete, suffices to suggest the gravity and the complexity of the duties which rest upon the members of the Commission and which the States they repre­sent are under obligation to cause to be performed, to the end th a t the trea ty obligations of those S tates shall be carried out.

Difficulties confronting the Commission and its Important Accomplishments.

In commenting upon the ex ten t to which the Commission has been able up to the present tim e to perform the functions imposed upon it, i t is im portan t not to overlook the extraordin­ary difficulties which have confronted the Commission in the early years of its existence. At th e close of the w ar each of the Danube countries was wholly preoccupied with different and overwhelming problems. Measures which seemed indispensable for self-preservation and for adap ta tion to fundam ental changes which had suddenly come about inevitably found expression in an intensely nationalistic a ttitude , which was greatly accentuated by the passions aroused by the w ar and the subsequent reconstruction of national boundaries. In such circumstances it was extrem ely difficult for any of the D anube States a t the outset to consider the special problem s of the Danube in an atmosphere where dSe regard could be given to the mutual interests of the States in protecting and promoting Danube navigation. L ittle by little it is believed th a t in these respects conditions have immensely improved and th a t favourable pro­gress is being made. B ut, on account of the extremely difficult situation in which each of the S tates found itself, the questions arising in the adm inistration of the Danube Statute have called for a very large am ount of debate and th is has m ade i t alm ost impossible, in the

limited period of the Commission’s sessions, to reach definite conclusions on m any of the m atters presented to i t and calling for its decisions, and upon m any other m atters calling for the exercise of initiative by it.

D espite th e difficulties with which the Commission has thus been confronted, i t is never­theless true th a t, even in the extremely troublesome formative period through which i t has had to go, i t has already been able to render im portant services. Although the Commission has not drawn up the general plan required by the S tatu te for improvement works for the river system , i t adopted, in June 1922, a set of principles to govern the various States in sub­mitting projects to the Commission for approval. I t has adopted a uniform system of kilo­métrage for the entire river. I t has likewise established an Information Section for furnishing the navigators w ith data as to the depths to be expected between stations, and as to whether the river is rising or falling. I t has dealt with such programmes as the States have subm itted for annual m aintenance work. In one instance where a shoal developed below Devin, the Commisson took the initiative in getting the State of Czechoslovakia to s ta r t dredging prom ptly, so as to open a new channel. The Commission has in its resolutions pronounced certain 11 directives ” on the subject of freedom of transit. The Commission has drawn up a uniform set of shipping and police regulations which, while not e n tire ly complete, cover a large number of important subjects. The Commission has administered the service a t the Iron Gates, and fixed the dues to be imposed on ship tonnage in re sp ec t thereto. The Commission has also established principles governing a uniform system for th e establishment of a id s to navigation.

The accomplishments indicated have called for an immense am ount of effort, much more than is indicated by a mere recital of the things done. When i t is remembered th a t the points of view of ten different Powers m ust be obtained, th a t much time m ust elapse in doing this, that the Commission has only two regular sessions per year, each for only a period of about two weeks, and th a t decisions m ust be reached by two-thirds of the votes, the accomplishments listed, as well as others which have not been mentioned, represent substantial achievements.

Comments upon Postponements of Action.

On the o ther hand, it is only fair to say, and i t is believed th a t the fact is recognised by the members of the Commission, th a t m any things contemplated by the Statute, and in the interests of the various signatories of the Convention, have not yet been accomplished. For example, the Commission has not drawn up the contemplated general plan of improvement works. It has no t succeeded in bringing about agreement between frontier States as to distri­bution of expense of works, nor has the Commission itself undertaken to perform such works. It has not established as separate departm ents a technical service or a navigation service, although it has established technical and navigation bureaux in the general Secretariat, b u t it has not provided the necessary facilities nor given the necessary orders to enable either of these bureaux to render the im portan t aid which could be rendered in the general interest by the technical and navigation services contemplated by the Statute, if such services were established and were adequately supported. Doubtless an im portant influence in this regard is tha t all the States have felt compelled to economise in their expenditure and hence have discouraged their representatives on the Commission from enlarging the budget of the Com­mission, which m ust be paid either by contributions from the States or by navigation dues, which the Commission hesitates to impose. In addition, it is apparent th a t the Commission has found extreme difficulty in reaching decisions upon numerous extremely im portant ques­tions which have arisen, and which the Danube Statute makes it the duty of the Commission to decide.

There is attached hereto, as Annex IX, a brief summary of the various decisions taken and matters postponed a t the Commission’s sessions, from and including its first session in June 1920. These references are necessarily extremely brief and m ay not give a complete and accurate idea as to the scope of each item. Nevertheless, it is believed the summary is extremely useful in suggesting the variety of problems which have confronted the Commission and the extent to which the Commission has found itself unable to deal with them. It m ight be roughly said th a t m atters postponed have substantially exceeded m atters decided and th a t of#the matters decided perhaps two-thirds relate primarily to questions of the Commission’s own

54 —

adm inistration, m atters connected with its personnel, etc., while perhaps two-thirds of the questions not disposed of represent im portan t problems having a direct relation to the broad principles and purposes of the Danube Statu te, i.e., to the m atters of promoting freedom of transit, full and equal access to ports, non-preferential treatm ent, facilitating the due main­tenance and improvement of the river, etc.

I t goes w ithout saying th a t the accomplishment of the purposes of the Danube Statute and h: nee the realisation of the m ost expeditious and economical navigation of the river to the advantage of all the Danube countries, will be immensely promoted by the Commission reaching the point where it will be able to deal prom ptly and decisively with the numerous important m atters which in the pas t it has felt compelled to postpone, and on which action was again deferred a t its session ju s t closed on Ju ly 15th, 1925.

This effort to analyse the character and ex ten t of the Commission’s responsibilities, the history of its work and the present sta tus of th a t work, raises the question whether the Commis­sion will not find itself compelled by the importance and urgency of its obligations to provide much more frequent sessions, and sessions of a sufficiently long duration, to enable it to discuss to a conclusion the numerous m atters which so far it has not been able to decide and which appear to continue to be accum ulating upon its hands.

So far i t does not appear th a t anything in the nature of a closure upon debate has been attem pted , and perhaps nothing of the sort is feasible in dealing with subjects which present so m any different aspects, each of which is entitled to the fullest exposition. Nevertheless, should not due consideration be given to the thought th a t greater accomplishment could be achieved by inaugurating a policy whereby, a t the end of discussion, a decision will be insisted upon rather than a postponem ent ? W hen the representatives present consent to a postpone­m ent, they assume thereby a joint responsibility for non-action, which after a tim e becomes equivalent to a refusal to act. W ould no t the efficacy of the Commission be increased if the policy of acquiescence in postponem ent should give place to the policy of insistence upon decisions ? Is i t unreasonable to assume th a t, in m ost instances, a t least two-thirds of the representatives present would prefer to identify themselves with a policy of action rather than with a policy of non-action ?

Is i t not true th a t m any of the problems of real importance now arising do not involve any such fundam ental difference of principle on m atters of broad public policy as to preclude an agreement on such questions of principle on the pa rt of a t least two-thirds of the repre­sentatives ? Many of the questions calling for decision appear to be of a practical and even technical character ra ther than of a political character. V irtually every Danube country now has an enormous direct in terest in in ternational navigation of the Danube, each having strong and growing navigation companies, all of which would have their interests promoted by removing all delays and obstructions, whether physical or adm inistrative, which m ay stand in the way of the prom ptest and m ost economical navigation of the river. In the light of all these considerations, is i t not apparent th a t more and more i t will be found th a t a t least two-thirds of the delegates will find no necessity for disagreement upon the principles involved in any particular question and will be increasingly able to agree upon the practical details of a solu­tion ? Any reasonable settlem ent of m atters of detail should be more agreeable to at least two-thirds of the representatives th an a repeated postponement of action which, if continued, would am ount in practice to a negation of the S ta tu te in highly salu tary particulars. Of course, if these premises are correct, th e realisation of the desired result will be facilitated by the repre­sentatives insisting upon a vote and a decision, ra ther than consenting to a postponement.

A further question arises as to whether the Commission could no t be aided in dealing prom ptly w ith the questions in its plenary sessions by more complete assemblage of information in advance of the sessions. From tim e to time, the Minutes of the Commission indicate that postponem ents are sought to obtain information, when it would seem th a t the information m ight have been obtained in advance of the session.

I t is not w ithout a sense of hesitation and em barrassment th a t the foregoing observations are made. The Commission is composed of gentlemen of long experience and recognised stand­ing in dealing w ith the delicate problems which are entrusted to them . Nevertheless, since this report is expected to cover th is aspect an well as others of Danube navigation, it has seemed appropriate to subm it the foregoing analysis and state the foregoing queries, in the hope that

— 5 5 —

they may be found worthy of examination, or rather re-examination, since they doubtless have already been seriously considered. Even if these queries should not point to a solution, perhaps they may suggest alternatives which will aid in bringing about a m uch prom pter reaching of decisions than appears to have been practicable up to the present moment.

XVI.

EUROPEAN DANUBE COMMISSION.

(C. E. D.)

This Commission exercises jurisdiction over the river from Braila to the sea. The reasons for the creation of the Commission, as given in Articles 15 and 16 ol the Treaty of Paris of 1856, were to guarantee the freedom of navigation and to design and carry out various works of channel improvement in the section of the river over which the Commission was given juris­diction. It would seem th a t the Commission has fully carried out the m andate given it to guarantee the freedom of navigation and the equality of treatm ent to all flags. It term inated piracy, which was practised a t the m ouths of the river when i t originally took office, and has stopped the abuses of the pilots and other river men of th a t time.

Criticism, however, has been directed against the Commission in connection with the improvement of the river and in connection with the dues levied to pay therefor. Such facts as have been m ade available for this s tudy may be summarised as follows :

W ork of Channel Improvement.

Up to 1904, the works installed by the Commission had progressively increased th e facilities available for shipping, and had been the subject of repeated praise on the part of th e Roumanian officials. In th a t year the sandbank to the south of the jetties began to force northwardly the alignment of the channel over the bar, and in 1907 the Commission was informed by its engineer th a t dredging could not be expected to produce more than tem porary benefits. The Commission’s only action, however, was to engage more actively in dredging, and it purchased another dredge. N ) t until 1911 (when it purchased still another dredge) did it begin to accum ulate in a small way a fund for the prolongation of the jetties. In 1914 the depth of 24 feet, which had been m aintained almost continuously up to th a t time, was lost. The war broke ou t and the reserve fund which had been started in 1911 was evidently used up during the w ar to carry on such dredging and absolutely necessary work as was possible. After the war, as soon as the Commission began to function, it began to give consideration to the improvement of conditions as they then existed. In 1921, a b o a rd of consulting engineers was summoned, which laid down a project for the extension of the jetties. As soon as the necessary personnel and m aterial could be assembled, work was begun on the new project, and this has been carried on ever since. In the summer of 1924, the depth suddenly diminished to 13% feet. A new alignment still further to the north was selected for a temporary entrance channel across the bar, and communication was again resumed and maintained, w ith depths varying from 18 to 21 feet, until Ju ly 25th, 1925. On this date the new channel th rough the extended jetties was opened for traffic with an available depth of 20 feet. On Ju ly 31st this had been increased to 22 feet and work is continuing with a view to regaining the dep th of 24 feet.

It would seem from exam ination of these facts th a t the Commission erred in not beginning the creation of a fund to prolong the jetties in 1904 or in any event in 1907. B ut notwith­standing this m istake, to which no one at the time took exception, it would probably have succeeded in preventing such bad conditions as have obtained since 1914 had the war not broken out in that year. Since 1921, the Commission has done all th a t anyone reasonably could have expected i t to do. I t is, however, easy to criticise a decision after the îesults of it have become known, and it seems somewhat unfair to begin now a criticism of conditions which are fundamentally based on a course of action taken from 1904 to 1911.

— 56 —

R oum anian interests have insisted th a t the im port and export traffic of Braila and Galatz were seriously injured in 1924 by th e shallowness of the channel a t Sulina. The Chamber of Commerce a t Galatz subm itted a list of 32 or more vessels which in 1924 had to abandon their tr ip to B raila and Galatz, tak e a partial cargo in port or complete the ir lading in th e roads outside the bar. On one of the visits to Sulina in th e course of this investigation, i t appeared th a t three or four vessels had to delay their departure for two or th ree days on account of a drop of abou t one foot in the dep th in the entrance channel. However, the effect appears to have been exaggerated.

Constanza is a Roum anian Black Sea port which was not affected a t all by conditions on the Danube. The figures for Constanza in Table 5, Annex II, show th a t conditions there have been th e same as, if not worse than , those a t Galatz and Brail?. This suggests th a t the falling off in th e commerce of Roum anian m aritim e ports m ust be due principally to some other cause th an th e conditions a t Sulina.

According to the reports of one ot the consuls in Constanza, exports of cereals have dropped to about one-half and petrol products to about one-quarter of the pre-war figures. The reason for this drop is a ttr ibu ted by him to the agrarian reform in Roumania, and to the necessity of supplying a larger population in territories acquired since the war which are not self-supporting agriculturally or as to mineral oil products. The very heavy export ta x on all cereals and the prohibition upon the exportation of wheat m ust have been very injurious to the com­merce of R oum ania’s m aritim e ports, and besides m ust have discouraged the production of cereals.

The ships appear to have been able to carry all th e traffic from B raila and Galatz which has been brought there for export. A t the tim e of a visit to Braila and G alatz about the middle of May 1925, there was practically no grain in the elevators of B raila and Galatz. One of the consuls in Braila reports :

“ The lack of organisation in the railway systems has occasioned complaints during 1924 both fro m importers and exporters. The railway authorities have been unable to furnish a sufficient number o f cars to deal adequately w ith the merchandise passing through Braila, and in consequence there have been considerable delays. ”

These considerations indicate th a t the principal damage to commerce was not due to restriction on th e draught of vessels at Sulina, b u t was due to other conditions prevailing in Roum ania, although th e shallowness of the Sulina channel m ust have caused some losses on account of delays and th e cost of lighteiing.

Dues.

In order to pay for the new works, it was necessary for the Commission to meet the expense from current dues. To this end the dues were raised in 1922 and again on January 1st, 1925, the present rates being a t the tim e of their coming into effect 250 per cent of the pre-war and 140 per cent of the 1922 rate. This is shown in the following table, the dues being stated in French francs per ton of registered tonnage :

Tonnage of Boats.

Pre-w ar1 Oct. 1st, 1922 2 Dec. 31st, 1924

Present 1 [effective Jan. 1, 1925

Sulina Braila or Galatz Sulina Braila or

Galatz SulinaBraila or

Galatz

201- 600 0 .30 0.55 1.90 3.55 0.75 1.37601-1,000 0 .60 1.10 3.85 7.05 1.50 2.75

1,001-1,500 0.90 1.40 5 .80 9.00 2.25 3.50More th an 1,500 tons 1.10 1.70 7.05 10.90 2.75 4.25

1 Gold. 1 Paper

— 57 —

The question naturally arises as to the effect of these dues on the movement of Roum anian products from the m ouths Oi th e Danube and on the shipping companies handling these pro ­ducts, and on the imports in to Roum ania. The ocean carrier pays these dues and takes them into consideration in fixing the shipping rates. Therefore the first effect th a t m ight have been expected would have been an increase in the shipping rates. On the contrary, the ocean rates since January 1925 have been regarded as substantially below the normal ocean rates. In 1924, the ocean rates had fallen to the abnormally low figure of 11 shillings per ton, due to the small amount of cargo offered, and in the first half of 1925 were from 11 to 15 shillings per ton, the inc rease being said to be due to the increased demand loi shipping on account of the large move­ment of S. H. S. maize. This suggests th a t any falling off in Roumanian export and im port traffic has not been occasioned by the increase in these dues, but is caused by other conditions. In this connection an examination of the to ta l sums figured out for various purposes on an actual movement from Braila to Antwerp is useful :

5200 tons full cargo of corn from Braila to Antwerp.

1. Roum anian export ta x on cargo 520 trucks a t £ 2 3 ................. £11,960

2. Total ocean freight earned a t 15s. per ton (a v e ra g e ) ................. £3,900

This includes :

Note : The Roum anian Government further collects 1 per cent on to ta l freight — half paid by owner and half by shipper.

It will be seen from this th a t the to ta l freight paid to the shipping company was only £3,900, whereas the export ta x was £11,960. The European Commission dues of £604 are included in the £3,900 and absorbed in the freight rate.

The Commission is, of course, forced to pay for the work now being completed with current receipts, as it has been unable to obtain long-term loans to cove* these expenditures. While the dues are very high, th ey do not appeal to be injuring commerce, a t least under existing conditions of ocean freight rates. There was in the spring ol 1925 a very large movement of maize from the S. H . S. S ta te through Sulina, and also a very large movement of Roumanian lumber. The reason there has been a very small movement of Roumanian cereals is th a t internal conditions appear to discourage production and to render exportation extremely difticult.

cation on the p a rt of the Roumanians th a t th e Commission has been extravagant. I t is some­what difficult to be precise on this point. An examination of the 1925 B udget ol the Commission, however, shows th a t the overhead of the Commission amounts to approximately 25 per cent of the total disbursements. In 1925, of the 13,444,900 French francs (paper) at which the to tal expenses of the Commission were originally estimated, 3,679,300 French francs are overhead. This figure seems ra the r large, particularly so as the construction work now being carried on by the Commission is greatly in excess of what it would be in normal jjpars. A consideration of this would seem to indicate th a t some reorganisation of the worl and personnel might effect substantial economies. The necessity for the maintenance of the Commission’s headquarters building in Galatz is likewise open to question, as a large part of this establishment is maintained for the use of the delegates themselves, who rarely spend more than a few days per year in the building. If such a suggestion is practicable, a consolidation of all of the Commission’s services in Sulina, except a small establishm ent a t the wharf in Galati,, would reduce the present expen­diture by about 4 per cent, or 500,000 French francs per year. In a normal year, this sum would oe a much larger percentage of the disbursements. In addition, the sale ot the headquarters building would bring in an appreciable amount, which could be applied to the amortisation

Port charges Braila (maximum Lei 10,000) European Commission dues ..................... I 604

£ 70P o rt dues a t port of destination (Antwerp)

Criticism directed against the Commission.

In connection w ith the criticism directed against the Commission, there has been an impli-

— 58 -

ot the floating p lan t which has not ye t been paid for, or else used in the improvement work Since th e Commission’s work is chiefly connected w ith engineering, i t would seem worth while to give consideration to the advisability oî having the Commission’s membership m ade up of technical experts, who could also serve as a board of consulting engineers. This, too, might lead to appreciable economies.

The only apparent a lternative, and i t is the solution contem plated by the Roumanian critics of the Commission, is to abolish th e Commission and to have all the affairs of administra­tion and im provem ent handled by the Roum anian Government. The wisdom of such a pro­cedure is questionable, as th a t Government has as a heritage of th e w ar m any grave and unsolved problems. Among these questions somewhat analogous to th e situation a t th e m ouths of th e D anube m ay be found th e lehabilitation and extension of the Roum anian railway, road telegraph and telephone services, all of which are adm ittedly still imperfect. I t would not seem to be the p a rt ot wisdom to a ttem p t to impose upon th a t Government additional respon­sibilities until i t has been able to recover more tu llj from the effects of the w ar and to dispose more satisfactorily of such new burdens as already rest upon it.

XV II.

GREATER CO OPERATION RETWEEN RAILWAYS AND DANUBE NAVIGATION.

I t is believed th a t th is is a subject of great importance to D arube navigation. Such a great river can never play a satisfactory rôle as a transporta tion agency unless it can be articulated with the railways, so as to receive traffic from them and supply traffic to them more completely than is now the case.

The difficulty appears to be th a t the S tate railway adm inistration in each of the Danube States is much more disposed to co-operate with other railways th an it is w ith Danube navi­gation. Through bills of lading are issued for through rail transporta tion to points in other countries, bu t not for rail and river transportation. Through rates are established with other railways, bu t not with the river. Yet in m any instances the S tate in which the traffic origi­nates would really have its interests better promoted if traffic by its own railway and the Danube could be encouraged rather than by its own railway and the railways of other countries. When the traffic moves by the railway of the State in which the traffic originates, and beyond its frontier by the other railways, the only revenue received by the S tate of origin is the revenue to the frontier. B u t if the traffic moves by railway to the Danube and thence by the Danube, the strong probability is th a t the traffic will move on the Danube in the vessels of the domestic navigation company, and in this way the S tate and its nationals will get the entire revenue on the traffic from the point of origin to destination ; first a substantial rail revenue to the river, and then also the revenue for the river transport.

Up to the present time, no t only has there not been a satisfactory co-operation of the rail­ways with the Danube, but, on the contrary, the railways have established extremely low special rates for the benefit of trade routes competitive with the Danube, the result being to take traffic away from the Danube altogether. The German railways appear to have encouraged the rail m ovement of traffic away from the Danube instead of to it. The Czechoslovak, Austrian and S. H. S. railways a ie understood to have co-operated in making very low rates to Trieste, which have taken the traffic away from the Danube, causing it to move instead by sea and rail.

I t is believed the navigation companies are justified in the efforts which they are m aking to secure much greatei consideration in the adjustm ent of railway rates a rd policies so as to be favourable to the Danube rather than unfavourable to it, and it is believed that the respective Danube States would be justified in giving sym pathetic consideration t o t h e s e efforts of the D anube navigation companies.

Czechoslovakia has already made some efforts to co-operate. It has established special rates on its railways in favour of its Danube ports, b u t through rail-Danube rates or through bills of lading have not yet been provided.

— 5 9 —

X V III.

EFFICIENCY OF NAVIGATION ON THE DANUBE.

This report has been devoted largely to a discussion of burdens which m ay rest upon navi- oation by reason of unnecessary requirements and delays imposed b y State laws or other public regulations, or resulting in practice from the attitude of State or local functionaries. Relief from unnecessary burdens is, of course, im portant to the end th a t navigation m ay increase in volume and importance, despite the serious and varied competition to which it is subjected by the activities of other trade routes and by the conditions prevailing in the world markets in which Danube products must to a large extent b e sold.

It is im portant also to raise the question whether Danube navigation cannot be improved and strengthened by the navigation companies themselves increasing the efficiency of their operations. It has been impossible in the tim e allotted to this investigation to make a searching study of these intricate problems, so th a t all th a t can be done is to suggest various questions which have arisen. It is believed th a t the vigilant representatives of the navigation companies will be quick to pursue to satisfactory conclusion any such enquiry which may appear to be worthy of further attention.

More efficient Loading of Barges ; more Complete Tows for Tugs; Elimination of Delay for Bargesand Tugs.

This m atter is approached from the standpoint of a iheory which has proved of immense value in increasing the efficiency of railway transportation in the United States. That theory is that perhaps the greatest losses in efficiency are due first to the railway wagons being loaded to less than their capacity, and, second, to the railway locomotives being sent out on the railway with train-loads below the capacity of the locomotives. The theory was concisely expressed by one of the greatest practical exponents of railway economy in th e United States, the late James J. Hill, by the s ta tem ent," First load your cars and then load your locomotives ” , meaning, in each case, to load to the capacity of the instrumentality. Another factor of very great importance in railway transportation is the avoidance of undue delays to railway wagons or to locomotives in terminals or other stations.

In these respects, railway transport and river transport have, of course, certain analogies. It means serious waste of capital and loss of the amount expended for maintenance if three barges are employed to transport what could be loaded in two ; or if two tugs are employed to tow barges which could be towed by one tug ; or if barges and tugs are wasted through idleness or delay.

As to inadequate loading of barges, the figures shown in Annex II for movement through the Iron Gates in 1911 and 1924 indicate great differences between the degree of utilisation on the part of different companies. While the m atter is largely determined by commercial and other factors beyond the control of the companies, there appears basis for the inquiry whether there is not room for the securing of greater loads, more nearly approaching the capacity of the barges.

If a barge has only one-third of a full load in both directions the barge expenses per ton are double what they are when two-thirds of a full load in both directions are carried. These expenses represent not only th e return on the investment and maintenance cost of the barge, but also the wages of the members of the crew of the barge. Further than tha t, the increased expense is also reflected in the tug-boat expense. If a tug-boat has to tow four barges where two could carry the cargo, the em pty weight of the two additional barges is a wasteful burden upon the tractive power of the tug, and deprives it to th a t extent of ability to be employed in profitable work.

It is, of course, a serious practical question as to what can be accomplished in the way of obtaining fuller loading of barges. I t is not overlooked tha t low water is sometimes a limiting

60 —

factor. B u t cannot increased effort secure loading more nearly to w hat the sta te of the w ater will perm it ? Perhaps there m ay be opportunity for more careful supervision to pre­ven t the cross hauling of em pty barges, i.e., some barges moving em pty upstream , while other similar barges are moving em pty downstream a t approxim ately the same time. Anything th a t diminishes the em pty m ovement will increase the average utilisation of barges. Again careful a tten tion on the pa rt of agents to the m anner in which forwarders load the barges may secure be tte r loading. No information is a t hand as to the ex ten t to which, if a t all, the com­panies seek to encourage heavy loading by giving lower rates per ton in case of a complete load th an in case of a partial load. I t would seem th a t the companies could well afford to consider favourably the offering of inducements of th is character.

Do the navigation companies get a high degree of performance ou t of their tug-boats by giving them full tows to pull, or is the capacity of the tug-boats wasted to a considerable extent b y their pulling tows m uch below their capacity ? Voyages on the river have left the impres­sion th a t in m any instances the tows are much below the capacity of the tug-boats.

The practice of moving tows which are below the capacity of the tug-boat instead of giving i t a tow equal to its capacity involves a direct waste of a pa rt of the capital invested in the tug-boats and also of the operating costs of the tug-boat. If three loaded barges are towed, the towing cost per ton of freight handled (including return on the capital investment) is twice w hat it would be if six loaded barges were towed (assuming the tug-boat has capacity to tow six loaded barges).

While the loading of barges is largely in the hands of the buyer and the seller of the cargo, the loading of the tug with a full tow is much more largely in the hands of the navigation com­pany. While appreciating th a t m any obstacles are in the way of realising the ideal, i t is believed t h a t intensive effort will likely show th a t efficiency can be greatly increased, a t least as to a good m any of the companies, through substantially increasing the average size of tows.

One way, referred to below, of getting greater tug-boat efficiency is for different companies to consolidate their incomplete tows and have the consolidated tow pulled by a single tug-boat.

As to time lost by barges and tug-boats, it is of course clear th a t such loss represents a loss of capital and a loss of w hat is spent for operation.

Time lost by barges is largely due to slowness of loading and unloading, bu t perhaps is also due in some cases to insufficient planning. Cannot the loading and unloading be expedited ? I t means, in busy seasons, an im portan t difference in earnirgs.

Time lost by tug-boats would seem to be more in the control of the companies, and depen­dent on careful planning.

I t is assumed th a t a t least some of the companies make careful current studies of their problems and show, for example, the kilometers per year and the average kilometers per day m ade by each tug-boat ; the average hours of running time per day of each tug-boat, and the average kilometers per hour of running time made by it. Such imperfect studies in this direc­tion as have been possible in th is investigation suggest th a t complete studies along these lines would be well worth while and would probably emphasise a low performance for the tug-boats.

There are included in Annex V III some ex tracts of notes upon particular voyages of tug­boats. These cases are probably not average cases, bu t they seem suggestive of methods which m ay tend to produce serious wastes of capital and operating cost unless very rigidly super­vised (see also Annex VII).

Anyone who has had contact w ith transporta tion problems, either on railways o r water­ways, fully appreciates th a t the ideal cannot be realised in these m atters ; th a t the seasonal character of the business, the emergency demands for m ovement of certain business, the im­possibility of getting cargoes which exactly correspond to the capacity of the barges, the restrictions of low w ater on barge loading, the necessity for moving em pty barges or partly loaded barges in one direction when the preponderance of traffic is moving in the other direc­

tion, the unavoidable necessity of moving tugs w ith incom plete tows, and m any other insu­perable obstacles, exist to getting th e theoretical maximum. However, w ith full a p p re c ia tio n

of the business necessities of the situation, the question still arises whether there cannot be pu t in to effect on the D anube a more rigorous application than heretofore of principles analo­gous to those which have m eant so m uch in railway operation.

Question as to Efficient Functioning of M any of the Existing Tugs.

Arother im portan t question arises as to whether the tugs now employed on the river are of a character to give the m axim um performance for the am ount of fuel and labour required in their operation. I t is fully appreciated th a t the long period of the war and the difficult readjustments foil owing the period of the war have had the tendency to compel the Danube navigation companies to do their work with tugs which in m any instances were p ro b a b ly rather old and inefficient a t the beginning of the war in 1914. Naturally, the companies cannot discard these tugs and buy new ones simply for the pleasure of having new equipment. The question arises, however, whether on full analysis of the performance of particular tugs it may be found th a t the fuel and labour required for their operation are so much greater than would be required in the case of a modern tug th a t the savings resulting from the change would more than pay the additional interest which would be called for on account of making the new investm ent. It is appreciated, however, th a t the existing high interest rates m ay make uneconomical the substitution of new tugs for old ones in m any cases where such substitution would be obviously uneconomical if moderate interest rates were obtainable. B ut nevertheless the question seems to be worthy of examination.

Special Telegraphic Communication for Navigation.

In connection with the most efficient utilisation of tugs and barges, it would seem th a t more speedy and reliable telegraphic communication along the river for the use of navigation companies would be of very great value. Practically all of the navigation representatives of whom the enquiry was made expressed this opinion. I t is understood th a t a telegraph con­vention among the riparian States has been drafted bu t has not yet been ratified. I t is hoped that the necessary ratifications can be obtained and the necessary work done to the end th a t this telegraph service m ay be put upon the most expeditious and reliable basis. I t would seem that such an improvement in communications would be of distinct value to forwarders and consignees in the p rom pt transportation of their consignments, as well as of great value in cutting down unnecessary losses of time in the handling of tugs and barges, and perhaps in many instances would avoid the necessity for a tug having to move with a tow less th an its capacity.

Greater Co-operation among Navigation Companies.

There would seem to be opportunities for improving efficiency7 by means of a greater co-operation among the navigation companies in the use of their properties. The navigation com­panies above the Iron Gates have already shown their ability to co-operate through forming a cartel for the regulation of their freight and passenger rates. The Bavarian Lloyd and the Czechoslovak Company have in addition set an excellent example by arranging for the common use of tugs, joint operation of self-propelled barges and for the common use in some instances of port facilities.

A much greater degree of co-operation is certainly to be desired among the Danube navi­gation companies. In an im portan t respect, their operations are a t a great disadvantage in comparison with those of their competitors, the railways. W ithin the limits of each State the railway operations are directed by a single administration and are unified or capable of being unified. It is possible to employ personnel, station facilities, shop facilities, locomotives, car­riages and wagons so as to avoid wasteful duplication of investment or effort. But on every part of the Danube there is great multiplication of facilities and energy in all these respects. This condition gives the railways an opportunity for economy, which the navigation companies will not enjoy until they find m ethods to get rid of wasteful duplications or facilities and services which they might profitably use in common.

62 —

Common Use of Facilities in Ports.

At present there seems to be, a t least in some of the im portant ports, a great multiplication of facilities and personnel. The question arises whether it would be found feasible and advan­tageous in m any cases for two or more of the navigation companies to join in using ware­houses and other port facilities, so as to reduce rental charges and the charges for personnel Perhaps in some of the States i t is impracticable under existing laws to diminish the existing personnel in any radical manner, but by degrees the existing personnel will retire, and if in the m eantime co-operative m ethods have been developed which can be operated w ith smaller per­sonnel, the way will thereby be open to im portan t economies.

In this respect also analogies m ay be drawn from the railway operations in the United States. In a great m any instances several railways serving the same term inal, although they are intensely competitive, have found th a t it was greatly to their advantage to join in main­tain ing a single terminal organisation and property for the common service of all the railways.

Common Use of Tug-boats.

The further question arises whether there could no t be a great extension of the practice of the common use of tug-boats. When two companies m ust move barges and each has only half a tow the cost might be reduced by half if it could be arranged for one tug-boat to make the trip . Of course, numerous reasons m ay be given why such arrangements would not realise all the the economies theoretically in prospect, b u t it is believed th a t sufficiently comprehensive planning and sufficiently a tten tive administration would probably make them productive of large economy.

A somewhat analogous railway situation is this : Railway A frequently gives the right to Railway B to run the la t te r’s trains over the tracks of Railway A for considerable distances, varying from a few miles to 100 miles or more. In this way a waste of capital is avoided, and a single m aintenance cost is divided between two companies, so th a t each company has to pay only half the maintenance cost i t would otherwise have to pay. This co-operative practice has been found practicable and highly desirable between railways which were intensely competitive.

Common Use of Repair Shops.

The question arises also w hether similar co-operation m ay not be practicable in respect of repair shops belonging to the navigation companies. Some of these companies have repair shops m uch in excess of their present needs. Other companies have far less repair facilities th an are needed for their existing floating material. W hy could not arrangements be made in the common in terest of both classes of companies to bring about a utilisation of these shops by the companies which need such utihsation ? It would seem the way would be open for both companies to profit substantially by such a practice, and in this way the State to which each company belongs would likewise profit through the strengthening of its own company to a greater extent than if it had not availed itself of such opportunity for co-operation and economy.

Building up Tourist Passenger Travel.

A nother question arises as to whether i t is not practicable to develop a much larger tourist passenger business than now exists on the Danube. The Danube is not oidy a river possessing an extraordinary in terest for the tourist from the scenic and historical standpoints, b u t i t is a river which appears to have an exceptionally romantic appeal. I t is certainly t ru e in the United States th a t practically everyone who visits Europe expresses the desire, more or less vague, to m ake a tr ip on the Danube. Y et the river seems remote from the parts of Europe usually visited by such tourists. There is a lack of information as to the facilities available for the trip, or as to the time required, and the result is th a t an extrem ely small proportion of American tourists ever undertake the trip. The question arises whether by the careful

— 6 3 —

developm ent of an effective service, perhaps w ith the co-operation of several of the navigation companies, and with an adequate advertising of this service, a very s u b s t a n t i a l increase could not be realised in the passenger traffic on the Danube. It would seem, too, th a t such a programme should involve an effort to encourage the passengers to travel upstream as well as downstream, because in m any of the scenic aspects the upstream trip is even more a ttractive than the down­stream trip.

It would seem also th a t such a programme should involve arrangements for comfortable stops of several days a t the principal Danube cities. I t would not only tend to increase the volume of such passenger travel on the Danube, bu t i t would be beneficial to the Danube coun­tries as a whole, increasing the understanding of their problems by travellers from other parts of the world, and also giving a certain measure of additional business to those cities. These suggestions are offered for the scrutiny of those who are competent to appraise the possibilities in this direction, and the probable income and the probable cost to be expected on account of efforts of this character, and are offered with a very sincere desire to see a continued increase in the prosperity of the Danube navigation companies, and in the prosperity of the Danube States, as well as an increased understanding of their problems in other parts of the world.

for both public and private purposes on more favourable terms than capital is a t present obtain­able. The trem endous problems of readjustm ent, not only on the p a rt of the Governments but on the p a rt of private business, call for substantial amounts of capital ; and the accomplish-

The undersigned has been a m ost sympathetic observer of the needs of the Danube States for additional capital and of the difficulties which have confronted them in obtaining th a t capital. He believes th a t a distinct element of those difficulties is th a t financiers in other parts

Danube States on account of w hat frequently appears to be the marked degree of misunder­standing and friction among them. W hatever can be done to remove the evidences of th a t friction will tend to allay the misgivings of those who have capital to lend.

These considerations are mentioned for the purpose of emphasising that the state of rela­tions among the Danube countries in respect of Danube navigation m ay in itself constitute an extremely significant index, in the minds of those having capital to lend, as to the degree of stability existing and in prospect in respect of the Danube countries.

There is probably no other river in the world th a t possesses in public psychology a more definite individuality and sigidficance than the Danube. I t is thought of as a symbol of the countries through which i t flows. If the Danube’s problems are dealt with by the riparian States and their navigation companies in a business-like and co-operative manner, th a t fact will be taken as an index of increasing stab ility in the inter-relationships of the Danube countries. If friction should become intensified as to the Danube problems, th a t fact would be taken by the outside world, including the financial world, as an index of a discouraging condition of unstable relations among the Danube countries.

Therefore, in addition to all the other advantages of co-operation as to the Danube, is it not obviously to the in terest of every one of the Danube countries to make the status of Danube navigation a favourable rather than un unfavourable factor in its bearing upon financial credit ?

It is believed th a t there is steady, though slow, progress in co-operation and understand­ing- Each year some difficulties are being smoothed away. The object of these comments is to emphasise the great desirability of making even greater and more rapid progress, and to

It is believed th a t one of the greatest needs in all of the Danube States is to obtain capital

THE GENERAL FINANCIAL CREDIT OF THE DANUBE STATES.

X IX .

ment of readjustm ent has been retarded by the extremely high interest rates which have prevailed.

of the world have entertained a serious feeling of uncertainty as to the future stability of the

— 64 —

point ou t th a t doing so has an im portan t relation to the broad question of the ability to borrow money on favourable term s for both S tate and private enterprises.

In conclusion, I wish to say th a t i t has been a very great privilege to be given the oppor­tu n ity to make this investigation. I t has been m ost gratifying to see the progress the Danube countries have already made in solving their baffling post-war problems and in establishing encouraging beginnings of co-operative relationships w ith each other as to Danube navigation.

I would like also, on behalf of Major Somervell and myself, to express our appreciation of the patience and courtesy with which the governmental and business representatives of the riparian States, as well as the representatives of the European Commission and the Inter­national Commission, have responded to requests for information ; and also our deep appre­ciation of the helpfulness of the Secretariat of the League of N ations in furnishing us such extensive facilities to do our work.

( Signed) W alker D. HINES.

Gen e v a , August 1st, 1925.

PART 2.

An n e x I. MAP OF DANUBE. A n n e x II. TBAFFIC STATISTICS.

A n n e x III. R IV E R FLEETS.

A n n e x IV. SHIPYABDS.

— 68

Suddeutsch Donaudampfschiffahrt Gesellschaft (S. D.) :F leet ...................................................................................................Port Facilities ............................................................................

Continentale Motorschiffahrts A. G. Amsterdam :Fleet ...................................................................................................A g e n c i e s ..........................................................................................Port Facilities ............................................................................

Czechoslovak Danube Navigation Company :Fleet ....................................................................................................A g e n c i e s ..........................................................................................Port F a c i l i t i e s ............................................................................

Royal Hungarian River and Sea Navigation Co. (M. F. T. R .) :F leet ....................................................................................................A g e n c i e s ..........................................................................................Other Stations ............................................................................Port F a c i l i t ie s .................................................................................Landing F a c i l i t i e s .......................................................................

Hungarian Inland Navigation Co. (M. B .R .) :F l e e t ......................................................... ..........................................

S. H. S. Syndicate :Fleet ...............................................................................................A g e n c i e s ..........................................................................................Port Facilities ............................................................................

Roumanian Fluvial Navigation :Fleet ....................................................................................................Port F a c i l i t i e s ............................................................................

Roumanian Society oj Navigation on the Danube. (S. R. D.) :Fleet ....................................................................................................A g e n c i e s ..........................................................................................Port F a c i l i t i e s ............................................................................

Also tables showing unloading fadlities of certain maritime companies, viz. :Société Fra iss inet...............................................................................................Société Lloyd T riestin o .................................................................................Société Sitmar ...............................................................................................

Annex IV.

SHIPYARDS.

° C am pu/ong

M anamu nesu/u/

Erfurt

©-P-RAGUEauen//lures

S u UnaTnenci n

S ered a Cicolui

Korneubur§<.losternçu bu, 'oi.

-4t r>tffidaî 3So m a r no

urem C50/052/0tsaH^y* *e.3 •WO»'

•Szo/ncA f'Sia varKor

■—/fudsfoK Nagyteteny

^& tra u b m gFermefr,

° A6ens'be■?Uma

Jà /o .tn g o /s ia d t

Du n à ro lo v a r • Ostrov

S i U s in aQ onauw onth

CAREST.0 H o c b \ta d t

Q O ifen ilzar Turt i rca /a ( r utrakan)

'ruck

i f +Ruhove ecA*V .^ (Jiurgiu

S o u b o i i i z a1 Sentà Varna

Sloboii'.punaszekcn

JVOTREforov<j rcher ,

u r n u v e rm

J /e * rh p * Brt a - yccjlts fiaianfia AS o fr e t in

Oreben rrahovo® \Raduje*sc-

B re q o v o

•nu Magl^ re le

° N ik o p o l

1 jSornovj^terv

Oolnji-rtiholidC '

hnauesch in ff& o6 el-sfje fcSÿ/ij

DANUBE NAVIGATIONANNEX No I

Pant.chcvA Aow.o e/pit

Gonna Om ehovitzaMohovO

i V idbol 9^\ Pa Ian ha A*Car -fiàUnkà

W a lk e r D. H in e sJchoupriie

'o v ta jn itz â Bosn

E.G/RAR D, G é o g ra p h e , /tf°” FOREST

Annex II.

TRAFFIC STATISTICS.

This annex, consisting of 19 tables, presents some information on the freight and passenger business on the Danube. I t likewise furnishes some light on the ex ten t and character of the statistics compiled by the European and the International Danube Commissions.

Table 1 gives the freight traffic by origin and destination for the years 1911, 1923 and 1924.Tables 2 and 3 fu rth er classify th is traffic according to flag for the years 1923 and 1924.Table 4 gives freight traffic on the Rhine for 1913.Table 5 indicates the traffic a t some of the principal Danube ports for 1911 and 1923.Table 6 gives the tonnage of vessels leaving the Sulina entrance for a num ber of years

before and after the war.Tables 7 and 8 show the fluctuations in the to ta l traffic a t the Iron Gates and the loading

of barges a t th a t point, and also indicate the flags carrying this traffic.Table 9 gives a list of the passenger services m aintained before and after the war.Table 10 shows graphically the num ber and geographical ex ten t of these same services.As illustrations of the inform ation which is collected by the In ternational Commission,

Tables 11 and 12 are furnished showing the up- and down-stream m ovement a t the Iron Gates, divided according to flag.

Table 13 is illustrative of how this traffic is divided between the various categories of freight.

Table 14 gives a list of the various statistics compiled by the European Danube Commission.Tables 15, 16 and 17 show the class of goods exported from the m outh of the Danube

and are likewise based on inform ation furnished by the European Danube Commission.Tables 18 and 19 show in an incomplete fashion a comparison of the ton kilometers and

passenger kilometers of some of the larger Danube navigation companies before and after the

Tableau 1 . — T r a f i c ( e n t o n n e s ) p a r p a y s d ’o r i g i n e e t d e d e s t i n a t i o n .

Table 1 . — T r a f f i c ( i n t o n s ) b y O r i g i n a n d D e s t i n a t i o n .

A destination de To

ALLEMAGNEGERMANY

AUTRICHEAUSTRIA

HONGRIEHUNGARY

TCHÉCOSLOVAQU IE CZECHOSLOVAKIA

En provenance de From 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924

A ll em ag ne ..................Ge r m a n y ......................A u t r i c h e .......................A u s t r i a .........................H o n g r i e .........................H u n g a r y .......................T chécoslovaquie Czechoslovakia . . . R oy a u m e S. H . S . . . . S. H . S. K ingdom . . .B u l g a r i e ......................B u l g a r i a ......................R o u m a n i e ....................R o u m a n i a ....................

T otal .........................

16,000

30.000

42.000

11.000

111,000

1,415

51,000

4,124

19,645

64,126

45,440

22,957

1,309

21,707

8,936

19,697

34,715

22,330

16,624

659

25,968

49.000

204.000

580.000

30.000

280.000

6,000

37.000

90,841

42,692

150,211

22,181

85,646

33,072

123,960

51,438

58,504

193,002

7,185

71,637

23,761

232,612

40.000

300.000

378.000

19.000

657.000

17.000

57.000

153,787

75,782

225,618

4,063

54,546

1,813

29,227

128,251

61,711

147,718

11,797

75,150

2,729

52,913

1,233

19.000

37.000

6,000

19.000

1,000

7,827

1,698

1,640

21,144

7,607

12,897

1,858

6,312

1,792

3,159

65,997

13,193

114,231

19,679

52,903

262,415 179,308 128,929 1,186,000 548,603 638,139 1,468,000 544,836 480,269 91,060 53,156 270,954

A destination de To

r o y a u m e s . h . s ,S. H. S. KINGDOM

BULGARIEBULGARIA

ROUMANIEROUMANIA TOTAL

En provenance de From 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924 1911 1923 1924

A l l e m a g n e .................15.000

143.000

266.000

29.000

500,000

6,164

69.000

65,896

32,650

7,570

37,243

968,753

44

82,260

13,708

40,809

20,574

59,134

1,016,183

22

86,113

3.000

20,000

5.000

1.000

50.000

27.000

163,000

4 ,030

11,505

8,343

4,546

1,777

27,308

96,632

17,251

15,496

3,669

11,592

2,411

37,757

114,527

20,000

25.000

15.000

1,000

144.000

345.000

1,948,000

14,602

22,075

3,461

3,868

15,018

44,842

1,145,593

11,010

14,379

7,195

6,777

73,243

40,262

647,607

144,233

741,000

1.323.000

97,000

1.761.000

403,579

2,332,827

334 ,978

205,989

480,473

124,948

1,161,594

110,246

1,505,691

232,386

213,755

472 ,870

131,008

1,369,479

124,869

1,212,643

Ge r m a n y ......................A u t r i c h e ......................A u s t r i a .........................H o n g r i e ......................H u n g a r y ......................T chécoslovaquie . . Czechoslovakia . . . R o y a u m e S. H. S . . . . S. H. S. K i n g d o m . . .B u l g a r i e ......................B u l g a r i a ......................R o u m a n i e ....................R o u m a n i a ....................

T otal .................... 1,028,164 1,194,416 1,236,543 269,000 154,141 202,703 2,498,000 1,249,459 800,473 6,802,639 3,923,919 3,757,010

■'jo

C h if f re s d e 1 9 1 1 , e x t r a i t s d u t a b l e a u A d e 1*A n n e x e X X . D é c i s io n d e l’a r b i t r e , e n d a t e d u 2 a o û t 1 9 2 1 , r e l a t i v e à d e s q u e s t i o n s q u i s e p o s e n t a u s u j e t d e la n a v i g a t i o n s u r le D a n u b e . . .

F ig u r e s f o r 1911 f r o m T a b le A of A n n e x X X . D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f A r b i t r a t o r b e a r i n g d a t e o f A u g u s t 2 n d , 1921 , in t h e m a t t e r o f q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g a s to D a n u b e s h ip p in g . C h if f re s d e 192 3 e t 1 9 2 4 f o u r n i s p a r le s c o m p a g n ie s d e n a v i g a t i o n s u r le D a n u b e , ù l ' e x c e p t i o n d e s c h i f f r e s r e l a t i f s a u t r a f i c i n t é r i e u r d e Ja R o u m a n i e ; ces d e r n i e r s o n t

{■té fo u r n is p a r le G o u v e r n e m e n t r o u m a i n lu i - m ê m e . . . , . . .Figures lor 1 9 2 3 mul 1 9 2 4 from intormation furnished by Dnnui^^ “iiinping companies, except «s to internal traffic in Honiimnin, which information was supplied Dy me

RoHmaivVnn Government.

— 71 —

Tableau 2 . — T r a f i c ( e n t o n n e s ) p a r p a v i l l o n e n 1 9 2 3 . Table 2 . — T r a f f i c ( i n t o n s ) b y F l a g i n 1 9 2 3 .

To T otal

E n provenance de — From

A destina tion deRoum anieRoum ania

BulgarieBulgaria

Royaumi des Serbes, Croates

et SlovènesS. H. S.

Tchéco­slovaquieCzecho­slovakia

HongrieH ungary

A utricheA ustria

Alle­m agne

Germ any

German 37,090 12,200 500 400 300 17,000 5,000 1,690 AllemandAustrian 72,726 3,275 809 11,011 19,739 27,293 8,873 1,726 A utrichien >Hungarian rt," 32,591 2,997 1,713 6,277 15,147 5,749 708 HongroisCzechoslovak g 28,452 3,235 1,384 19,124 4,686 23 Tchécoslovaque 3S. H . S. 8,449 8,449 S. H . S. wBulgarian s Bulgare 3Roumanian R oum ain »

Total 179,308 21,707 1,309 22,957 45,440 64,126 19,645 4,124 TotalGerman 64,270 20,520 — 500 500 14,000 1,750 27,000 AllemandAustrian 284,233 49,261 28,153 34,814 5,123 82,214 36,734 47,934 AutrichienHungarian > 96,931 9,522 4,517 2,080 6,840 53,994 4,203 15,775 Hongrois >Czechoslovak e 24,574 13,314 402 1,000 9,718 3 132 Tchécoslovaque r*S. H . S. % 47,252 — 47,252 — — — — S. H . S. £"Bulgarian Bulgare 3*Roumanian 31,343 31,343 — — — — — — Roumain

Total 548,603 123,960 33,072 85,646 22,181 150,211 42,692 90,841 TotalGerman 60,850 3,700 — 18,900 50 100 9,000 30,000 AllemandAustrian 217,658 16,430 1,329 17,020 1,588 74,823 53,452 53,016 AutrichienHungarian tiJ 239,023 7,865 170 10,874 2,059 150,695 13,301 54,059 HongroisCzechoslovak 19,063 1,232 314 410 366 29 16,712 TchécoslovaqueS. H . S. TO 8,242 8,242 S. H. S. CRBulgarian BulgareRoumanian R oum ain

Total 544,836 29,227 1,813 54,546 4,063 225,618 75,782 153,787 TotalGerman n 5,350 1,200 — 1,000 — 2,000 150 1,000 AllemandAustrian 20,551 4,313 1,097 4,548 304 8,996 1,069 224 AutrichienHungarian er 12,794 475 400 700 534 9,834 391 460 HongroisCzechoslovak o 9,080 324 361 1,268 6,769 314 30 14 TchécoslovaqueS. H. S. 5,381 5,381 S. H . S.Bulgarian BulgareRoumanian ** Roum ain

Total 53 53,156 6,312 1,858 12,897 7,607 21,144 1,640 1,698 TotalGerman 10,465 2,690 25 500 250 7,000 AllemandAustrian 36,897 396 40 904 5,068 4,252 20,630 5,607 AutrichienHungarian CZD 8,334 350 1,459 2,331 1,860 2,334 Hongrois S ~c5Czechoslovak 6,318 3 4 5,214 25 661 411 Tchécoslovaque 5 3S. H. S. a 1,079,533 25,952 967,849 25,477 462 9,249 50,544 S. H. S.Other Companies 18,974 18,974 — — — — — — Autres comp. un wBulgarian BulgareRoumanian 33,895 33,895 — — — — — — Roum ain

Total 1,194,416 82,260 44 968,753 37,243 7,570 32,650 65,896 TotalGerman 23,600 4,000 18,600 1,000 AllemandAustrian 31,262 4,713 8,091 1,321 1,540 4,858 8,299 2,440 AutrichienHungarian m 6,668 36 238 1 389 3,454 2,037 513 Hongrois wCzechoslovak c 8,852 4,616 340 2 2,617 31 1,169 77 TchécoslovaqueS. H. S. cn S. H . S.Other Companies 9,642 9,642 — — — — Autres comp.Bulgarian p BulgareRoumanian 74,117 73,625 39 453 — — — — Roum ain

Total 154,141 96,632 27,308 1,777 4,546 8,343 11,505 4,030 TotalGerman 11,345 3,640 30 25 400 850 6,400 AllemandAustrian *71 37,543 8,206 6,065 2,079 1,591 13,879 5,716 AutrichienHungarian O 19,978 1,323 11,354 486 1,468 3,897 1,450 HongroisCzechoslovak 9,753 273 4,950 1,278 2 2,214 1,036 Tchécoslovaque cS. H. S. 7,916 7,916 S. H . S.Other Companies b 821,020 805,422 9,138 6,460 — — — Autres comp. sRoumanian » 341,904 326,729 13,335 605 — — 1,235 — Roum ain

Total 1,249,459 1,145,593 44,842 15,018 3,868 3,461 22,075 14,602 TotalGerman 212,970 47,950 19,100 19,930 900 34,000 17,000 74,090 AllemandAustrian 700,870 86,594 45,584 69,625 35,441 204,027 142,936 116,663 AutrichienHungarian 416,319 22,568 16,679 15,368 18,044 236,923 31,438 75,299 HongroisCzechoslovak 106,092 22,997 6,371 4,064 45,086 5,061 4,131 18,382 Tchécoslovaque HS. H S. 1,156,773 25,952 1,045,089 25,477 462 9,249 50.544 S. H . S.Other Companies 849,636 834,038 9,138 6,460 — — — Autres comp.Roumanian 481,259 465,592 13,374 1,058 — — 1,235 — Roum ain

Grand T otal 3,923,919 1,505,691 110,246 1,161,594 124,948 480,473 205,989 334,978 T otal général

Note . — P o u r pavillon bulgare, nous n ’avons pas pu trouver des données.Les chiffres du trafic ex té rieu r du R oyaum e des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes ne s 'appliquent q u ’au Syndicat S. H. S.Les chiffres du trafic in térieur du R oyaum e des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes s’appliquent à toutes les compagnies de navigation

yougoslaves.Les chiffres des compagnies de navigation à vapeur ( Continental Motorship, Co., sous pavillon hollandais,

autrichiennes com prennent ceux de la ( Süddeutsche, sous pavillon allemand.La rubrique « Roum anie » ne comprend que les chiffres de la N. F . R . e t de la S. R . D.Note . — No d a ta for Rulgarian flag.S. H. S. figures for external traffic represent S. H . S. Syndicate only.S. H. S. figures for internal traffic represent all S. H . S. shipping companies.

. . . . , r. , , ( Continental Motorship Co., which is under D utch flag.Austrian steam ship companies figures include | süddeutsche, under German flag.Heading “ R oum anian ” représentés N. F . R . and S. R. D. only.

— 7 2 —

Tableau 3. — T r a f i c ( e n t o n n e s ) p a r p a v i l l o n s e n 1924. Table 3 . — T r a f f i c ( i n t o n s ) b y F l a g i n 1924.

To T otal

E n provenance de. —- From

A destination deRoumanieRoum ania

BulgarieB ulgaria

Royaume des >erbes, Croates

et Slovènes S. H. S.

Tchéco­slovaquieCzecho­slovakia

HongrieH ungary

A utricheA ustria

Alle­m agne

G erm any

Germ an 22,285 10,000 260 500 7,000 3,000 1,525 AllemandA ustrian 41,715 11,680 595 3,807 3,480 15,865 5,994 294 AutrichienH ungarian 33,657 2,868 64 1,174 1,369 10,362 10,703 7,117 Hongrois >Czechoslovak 20,245 1,420 356 16,981 1,488 TchécoslovaqueS. H. S. 3 11,027 11,027 S. H. S.O ther Companies A utres comp.Bulgarian BulgareRoum anian R oum ain

Total 128,929 25,968 659 16,624 22,330 34,715 19,697 8,936 TotalGerman 75.100 35,400 1,000 200 1,000 15,000 2,500 20,000 AllemandAustrian 326,487 93,672 17,253 29,234 2,353 114,263 42,894 26,818 AutrichienH ungarian 135,679 38,593 4,696 9,221 3,347 62,493 13,110 4,219 Hongrois ..Czechoslovak > 13,573 8,986 812 1,643 485 1,246 401 Tchécoslovaque cS. H . S. 31,339 --- 31,339 — --- --- --- S. H . S.Other Companies A utres comp. oBulgarian BulgareR oum anian 55,961 55,961 --- — — --- --- --- R oum ain

Total 638,139 232,612 23,761 71,637 7,185 193,002 58,504 51,438 TotalGerman 45,800 5,000 — 2,200 100 500 13,000 25,000 AllemandAustrian 197,775 24,960 1,878 25,36-1 3,259 62,728 38,919 40,667 AutrichienH ungarian 172,509 17,198 851 6,768 6,769 84,490 9,792 46,641 HongroisCzechoslovak 18,834 1,222 1,669 15,943 TchécoslovaqueS. II. S. 39,596 39,596 S. H . S. =O ther Companies Autres comp. *Bulgarian Bulgare aR oum anian 5,755 5,755 R oum ain

Total 480,269 52,913 2,729 75,150 11,797 147,718 61,711 128,251 TotalGerman 26,500 2,700 — 20,000 — 3,000 300 500 AllemandAustrian 90,443 28,577 7,467 27,055 2,526 22,629 1,956 233 AutrichienH ungarian 69,683 13,364 7,025 10,153 233 37,681 247 980 Hongrois aCzechoslovak 34,199 7,814 5,187 7,342 10,434 2,687 656 79 Tchécoslovaque g-S. H. S. 49,681 49,681 S. H . S. -O ther Companies n A utres comp. 5Bulgarian Bulgare F.R oum anian 448 448 Roum ain

Total CO 270,954 52,903 19,679 114,231 13,193 65,997 3,159 1,792 TotalGerman 7,060 660 200 1,700 2,000 500 2,000 AllemandA ustrian 66,025 2,043 7 124 13,486 16,670 30,384 3,311 Autrichien y ?H ungarian V) 11,725 1,533 15 1,600 4,932 898 1,388 1,359 HongroisCzechoslovak 10,502 9,877 625 Tchécoslovaque - aS. H . S. 'X 1,110,213 50,859 1,014,259 29,139 1,006 8,537 6,413 S. H . S.O ther Companies 30,219 30,219 A utres comp.Bulgarian Y* BulgareRoum anian 799 799 R oum ain s s

Total 1,236,543 86,113 22 1,016,183 59,134 20,574 40,809 13,708 TotalGerman 24,640 3,500 20,390 540 210 — --- — AllemandA ustrian 52,389 1,273 14,064 786 9,784 2,627 13,439 10,416 AutrichienH ungarian 16,949 2,445 3,299 805 1,598 1,042 2,057 5,703 HongroisCzechoslovak 6,226 5,094 1,132 TchécoslovaqueS. H . S. — — — — S. H . S.O ther Companies 5 1,715 1,715 A utres comp.Bulgarian BulgareR oum anian 100,784 100,500 4 280 — — — — Roum ain

Total 202,703 114,527 37,757 2,411 11,592 3,669 15,496 17,251 TotalGerm an 17,850 8,810 600 1,750 890 1,700 4,100 AllemandA ustrian 50,362 12,607 8,060 9,076 2,612 2,736 10,578 4,693 AutrichienH ungarian lu 30,674 6,150 4,241 10,916 1,480 3,569 2,101 2,217 HongroisCzechoslovak c | 5,833 4,298 600 935 Tchécoslovaque =S. H . S. d 41,701 41,701 — — — — S. H . S. 2O ther Companies 418,321 405,608 5,013 7,700 A utres comp. 5R oum anian » 235,732 210,134 22,348 3,250 — — — — R oum ain a

Total 800,473 647,607 40,262 73,243 6,777 7,195 14,379 11,010 TotalGerman 219,235 66,070 21,390 24,000 5,260 28,390 21,000 53,125 AllemandA ustrian 825,196 174,812 49,324 95,446 37,500 237,518 144,164 86,432 AutrichienH ungarian 469,876 82,151 20,191 40,637 18,728 200,535 39,398 68,236 HongroisCzechoslovak H 109,412 27,612 6,599 10,563 40,301 5,421 656 18,180 TchécoslovaqueS. H . S. 1,283,557 50,859 1,187,603 29,139 1,006 8,537 6,413 S. H . S.O ther Companies 450,255 437,542 5,013 7,700 A utres comp.R oum anian 399,479 373,597 22,352 3,530 — — — — R oum ain

Grand T otal 3,757,010 1,212,643 124,869 1,369,479 131,008 472,870 213,755 232,386 T o ta l g é n é r a l

N o te. — Pour pavillon bulgare, nous n ’avons pas pu trouver de données.Les chiffres du trafic extérieur du R oyaum e des Serbes, Croates et Slovènes ne s’appliquent q u ’au Syndicat S. H . S..Les chiffres du trafic in térieur du R oyaum e des Serbes, Croates e t Slovènes s’appliquent à tou tes les compagnies de n a v i g a t i o n

yougoslaves.Les chiffres des compagnies de navigation à vapeur f Continental M otorship Co., sous pavillon hollandais ;

autrichiennes com prennent ceux de la : \ Süddeutsche sous pavillon allem and.L a rubrique « Roum anie » ne com prend que les chiffres de la N . F . R . e t de la S. R . D,N o te. — No d a ta for Bulgarian flag.S. H . S. figures for external traffic represent S. H . S. Syndicate only.S. H . S. figures for in ternal traffic represent all S. H . S. shipping companies.

A ustrian steam ship companies’ figures include j u n d ^ ^ r m a " * " ^♦ H eading “ R oum anian ” indicates N. F. R . and S. R . D. only.

Tableau 4 . — T r a f i c s u r l e R h i n e n 1913.

Table 4. — R h i n e T r a f f i c f o r 1913.

Q U A N TITÉS D E M A RCHANDISES (en tonnes) — Q U A N TITIES OF M ER C H A N D ISE (in tons)

ZONES DU T R A FICF er Minéraux

MineraisHouille

CoalCéréales

Cereal

Produits onlim. y comp. pétrole

Goods (rom colonies, inet, petroleum.

EngraisF e r ti ­lisers

BoisWood

DiversMiscellaneous

T otalZONES OF T R A FFIC

M e r - R u h r ................... 162,700 8,959,800 2,100 1,800,000 60,900 99,100 266,900 397,100 10,956,600 Sea-RuhrMer-Rhin Moyen. 80,000 820,900 341,200 2,859,100 463,900 364,600 961,700 1,707,100 7,599,300 Sea-Mid RhineMer-Haut Rhin (non

compris la Suisse) . 16,700 2,000 140,100 585,500 24,400 6,700 54,300 117,400 947,100Sea - Upper Rhine (Switzerland not incl.)

R u h r -M e r ................... 1,450,700 14,200 11,757,900 1,000 — 194,900 5,300 356,700 13,780,700 Ruhr-SeaRuhr-Rhin Moyen . 200,700 1,000 7,472,500 4,200 1,800 — 1,600 170,100 7,851,900 Ruhr-Mid RhineRuhr-Haut Rhin (non compris la Suisse) . 69,900 1,903,500 800 100 100 15,900 1,990,300

Ruhr - Upper Rhine (Switzerlandnot incl.)

Rhin Moyen-Mer . . 461,400 15,000 9,600 10,300 5,100 136,800 71,300 3,054,800 3,764,300 Mid Rhine-SeaRhin Moyen . . . . 112,800 4,400 168,500 73,100 32,600 33,000 145,400 4.180.200

1.234.2004,750,000 Middle Rhine

Rhin Moyen-Ruhr . 209,900 839,200 300 4,600 4,100 5,200 170,100 . 2,467,600 Mid Rhine-RuhrRhin Moyen - Haut

Rhin (non compris la S u is s e ) ....................... 4,400 100 124,000 206,500 24,000 1,100 3,400 393,900 757,400

Mid Rhine - Upper Rhine (Switzerland not included)

Haut Rhin-Mer. . . 1,500 900 .— — 100 14,900 1,000 21,000 39,400 Upper Rhine-SeaHaut Rhin-Ruhr . . 102,800 3,700 — 200 — — 119,100 13,100 238,900 Upper Rhine-RuhrHaut Rhin - Rhin

Moyen ....................... 1,700 3,800 1,500 1,900 — — 139,900 156,600 305,400Upper Rhine - Mid

Rhine

Trafic local . . . . Trafic rhénan pour le

compte de la Suisse et du Luxembourg

T o t a l . .

2,876,000 10,665,000 21,921.200 4,755,200 617,000 856,300 1,940,100 11,818,100 55,448,9002,032,000

77,000

57,558,000

Local Traffic

Swiss and Luxemburg traffic on the Rhine

T o t a l

Chiffres extraits de la décision arb itrale, en date du 8 janvier 1921, concernant les biens que l’Allemagne doit céder à la F rance en v ertu de l’article 367 du T raité de Versailles,

Taken from the A rb itrato r 's D eterm ination, da ted Ja n u a ry 8th, 1921, in the m atter of the cessions by G erm any to France under Article 367 of th e T reaty of Versailles.

— 74 —

Tableau 5 . — T r a f i c d e s P o r t s p r i n c i p a u x d u D a n u b e .

Table 5. — T r a f f i c o f P r i n c i p a l D a n u b e P o r t s .

T o n n e s . — T o n s .

(Données fournies par le Gouvernement intéressé.)

(Data supplied by Governments concerned.)

1911 1923

ExpéditionsO utbound

ArrivagesInbound T otal

ExpéditionsO utbound

ArrivagesInbound T otal

Ratisbonne . . . . 185,704 76,667 162,371 196,708 109,321 306,029 RatisbonP a s s a u ................. 24,641 126,833 151,474 113,083 74,523 187,606 PassauL i n z ..................... 115,258 35,934 151,192 30,509 23,619 54,128 LinzSpitz ................... 85,178 37,003 122,181 SpitzV ie n n e ................. 1,307,255 465,205 1,772,460 140,142 599,877 740,019 ViennaB r a t i s la v a .......... 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 40,000 67,888 63,254 131.142 BratislavaK o m a r n o ............ 23,155 4,487 27,642 KomarnoK om enice............ 26,994 390 27,384 KomeniceBudapest.............. 690,839 2.398,575 3,089,414 85,137 537,802 622,939 BudapestV u k o v a r ............ 9,467 152,326 161,793 VukovarNovi sad................ 15,100 113,870 128,970 NovisadBelgrade............... 45,000 2 2 0 ,0 0 0 265,000 13,703 432,145 445,848 BelgradPancsovo ............ 89,600 18,100 107,700 50,179 94,433 144,552 PancsovoOrsova.................. 32,120 9,076 41,196 OrsovoTurnu Severin . . 77,671 21,236 98,907 62,093 13,791 75,884 Turnu SeverinCorabia................. 277,100 17,641 294,741 63,336 1,008 64,344 CorabiaC ala fa t ................. 187,315 18,691 206,006 67,722 15,355 83,077 CalafatTurnu Magurele. 239,175 14,994 254,169 98,970 13,271 112,241 Turnu MagureleGiurgiu.................. 285,913 101,611 387,524 293,959 66,264 360,223 GiurgiuOltenita................ 139,197 29,555 168,752 68,365 62,693 131,058 OltenitzaC ala ra s i .............. 210,973 19,942 230,915 79,768 14,037 93,805 CalarasiHarsova ............ 119,717 7,530 127,247 134,220 4,207 138,427 HersovaBraïla par mer . 1,614,591 268,147 1,882,738 982,479 40,824 1023,303 Braila overseasBraila s. Danube. 1,032,907 1.613,115 2,646,022 102,618 889,266 991,884 Braila RiverGalatz par mer . 763,006 302,395 1,065,401 496,355 127,219 623,574 Galatz overseasGalatz s. Danube 304,253 255,822 560.075 206.320 185,890 392,210 Galatz RiverM a t in ................... 157,938 2,239 160,177 135,927 1,051 136,978 MacinV i d i n ................... 53,102 17,165 70,267 15,366 5,897 21,263 VidinL o m ..................... 55,080 13,871 68,951 20,067 22,058 1 42,125 LomOrehovo ............ 58,291 8,036 66,327 59,350 3,942 63,292 OrehovoSomovid............... 27,170 37,994 65,164 4,578 34,631 39,209 SomovidSistov ................. 34,899 42,991 77,890 17,286 26,770 44,056 SistovRoustchouk . . . . 52,311 68,945 121,256 28,312 126,548 154,860 Rustchuk

Constanza............ 1,255,440 145,185 1,400,625 2542,802 2155,006 2697,808 Constanza

N on su r le D anube. — Données fournies pour perm ettre la com paraison avec les chiffres de B raïla e t de Galatz.N ot on D anube — D a ta furnished for com parison w ith Braila an d G alatz.

1 Chiffre approxim atif. — A pproxim ate.2 1924.

Table 6.

7 6 —

T ab leau 6. — Expéditions à l ’mboueh

Table 6. — Sulina E ni ran

PA V ILLO N

N A T IO N A LITY

Catégorie de navires

K ind of boat

1911

Nom breN um ber

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

1912

N om breN um ber

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

NombreNumber

1913

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

Nom bre

N um be r

1920

Tonnageenregistré

Registeredtonnage

Allemagne . . . Autriche-Hongrie Belgique . . . . B r é s i l ..................

Bulgarie . . . .

Canada Danemark Dantzig . Egypte . . Espagne . Esthonie . E tats-U nis Finlande .

France

Grande-Bretagne

G r è c e .................

Pays-Bas Hongrie . Interalliés Italie . . Japon . . S . H. S . .

Maroc . . Memel . . Norvège . P anam a . Perse . . Pologne . Portugal .

Roumanie

Russie .

Samoa .

Suède . Syrie

Turquie

UkraineUruguay

Vapeurs»

»

»

VoiliersVapeurs

Vapeurs»

»

»

»

VapeursVoiliers

VoiliersVapeursVoiliersVapeurs

Vapeurs

VoiliersVapeurs

VoiliersVapeursRemorq.

VoiliersVapeurs

VoiliersVapeurs

Vapeurs

35200

35

231

24535

3361364

81

14344

1531367

64

8729

116

58,235402,656

44,914

60

11,751

29 143

30

52

42,709974

43,6831,182,867

1,125642,066

18

247

1298

643,19118,294

134,334

8,773

31864,063

2994

26

64,38142

40,4594,871

40

358

45,472

5,9587,306

20,40218,50338,905

611

632083

68,982310,974

44,068

9222,4743,396

10,018

6,474

33,374

548,217

355558,311558,666

9,637

40,916

18,870

47,703

20552,105

52,310691

12,29421,56633,860

23158

26

7

3

28

278

112

8

118

15657

165

66

2

30

38

1

57,927313,219

37,894

433

54,779

669,589

211,729

18,729

181,860

15,484

667

31877,22977,557

865,971

1 1 ,3 !

3,13412,167

73,424,

271,4a650

118,051118,721

25,978

22,957178,1821

7,452'2,454

11255

9 i , e9 1 ,!

16743,92!

T o t a l 1,532 2,710,680 1,008 1,788,1.56 936

65,979

4,492

4,847 8,369

13,216

1,655

1,742,907 648

56 44,0!

12,31

1«

— 7 7 —

bras de Soulina, par pavillon.

,bound Movement by Flag.

31

1921

Tonnageenregis tréR eg is te red

to n n a g e

16 33,683

10,517

3,184 10;060

106 68,206

101 133,568

346,350359

137,887138,246

42,673

172,14710,55619,395

3,66827,413

4,047

103,230

10,771

18,208198118

'53 ,1,156,344'

1922

NombreNumber

12

6

4

60

1633

167170

489

103

41

12

1

2

55

27

691

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

29,601

11,778

2,195

11,419

15,348

85,277

345,220370

180,568180,938

95,54530,435

176,945

6,0351,039

27,981

12

526

114,953

14,190

4,467

196

1,154,100

1923

Nombre>amber

37

11

151

157

75

10

11

1

794

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

68,126

24,610

128

2,921

29,2061,111

3,05277,011

154 348,509 126

133 152,679 223

54 113,333 5515 49,426 14

191 418,085 136

16 36,807 11

7 13,427 91 3,662 —

140,412

11,986

18,175

165

1,512,791

1924

NombreNumber

41

11

94

17

50

55

10

52

797

TonnageenregistréRegistered

tonnage

93,533

19,987

2,474

19,8427,852

30,456

81,849

255,729

288,465

122,11442,684

242,541

17,838

23,718

2,7544,220

107,048

18,036

254684938

1,382,498

Catégories de navires

K ind of boat

PA V ILLO N

NA TIO N A LITY

Steamers»

SailersSteamers

Steamers»

»

»

»

»

»

Sailers

SailersSteamers

SailersSteamers

Steamers»

SailersSteamers

SailersSteamersSchlepps

SailersSteamers

SailersSteamers

Steamers»

T o t a l

Germany Austri a-Hungary Belgium Brazil

Bulgaria

CanadaDenmarkDantzigE gyptSpain Esthonia U. S. A. Finland

France

Great Britain

Greece

HollandH ungaryInter-AlliedItalyJapanS. H. S.MoroccoMemelNorwayPanam aPersiaPolandPortugal

Roumania

Russia

Samos

SwedenSyria

Turkey

UkraineUruguay

E x tra i t des S tatistiques de la Commission européenne d u Danube.

From Statistics of G. E . D.

T able 7. — I r o n G a t e s .

Cargo in tons ------------Total num ber of b a r g e s ------------Loaded barges -----------

21 22 23 24

Year

0 9 10 11 12 1306 07 21 22 23 24

Average cargo in loaded barges Average cargo for all barges -

393837363 5

34333231302928272625

- 24■§ 23| 22£ 21« 20« 19J 18■ 17a 16H 15

1413121110987654321

— 7 9 —

Table 8. — I r o n G a t e s .

Traffic arranged by flag.

~ T

/I '

f i \

Austrian(DD s g . + SD.)

A Hungarian(M FTR.)

Roum anian

All others Serb

1910 11 12 13 - Year 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 -<

— 8 0 —

T able 9 . -— P a s s e n g e r T r a f f i c .

Passenger traffic begins about April 1st and becomes more intensive during the summer months, when the following services are m aintained (local services, especially on the lower river, where no other form of transporta tion exists, are generally continued until stopped by ice and are begun in the spring as soon as possible) :

D. D. S. G.

1. Passau - Linz :Local steamer Mail steamer

2. Linz - Vienna :Mail steamer Express steam er

3. Melk - Krems :Local steam er

4. Vienna - B ratislava - Budapest : Mail steamer

5. Vienna - Bratislava - Budapest - Belgrade - Lom - Rustchuk - Giurgiu :Express steam er

6. Budapest - Mohacs :Local steam er

7. Vidin - R ustchuk :Passenger and Express Goods steamer

Six tim es weekly » in ea c h direction_ r our » » )

Daily in each direction.

Six times weekly in each direction.

Four tim es weekly in each direction.

Twice weekly in each direction.

Daily in each direction.

Four times weekly in each direction.

Czechoslovak Danube Navigation Co. :

1. Bratislava - Devin :

2. Komarno - Dunamoc :

M . F. T. R.

1. Budapest - Bratislava - Vienna :2. Vidin - R ustchuk :

3. Budapest - B aja - Mohacs :4. Budapest - Visegrad - Domos -

Esgtergom :

S. H. S. Syndicate.

1. Belgrade downstream to Radu- evatz :

2. Belgrade - Dubrovica - V. Gra- diste - Golubac :

3. Belgrade - Novisad - Osek - (Drave) :

Twice daily in each direction.Three times weekly in each direction.

Three times weekly in each direction. Twice weekly in each direction.Six times weekly in each direction.

Three times weekly in each direction.

Twice weekly in each direction.

Four times weekly in each direction.

Three times weekly in each direction.

— 81 —

4. Belgrade -T itel - St. Becej - Senta (Tisza) :

5. Vel. Beekerek (Bega Canal) - T itel (Tisza) S lankam en :

6. V ukovar - N ovisad :

7. Zem un - B elgrade - P an tchevo :

8. Belgrade - Zem un :

9. B elgrade-Pantchevo-Sm ederovo :

10. Belgrade - T ite l (Tisza) - V. Beekerek (Bega Canal) Srp. K rs tu r (Tisza) - Osek (D rave) - B ezdan :

S. F. R.

1. G alatz - B rail a :

2. Ma ci n - B raila :

3. B raila - Sulina :

4. B raila - Tulcea - Ism ail - Valcov :

5. B raila -Tulcea - Ism ail - Chilia :

6. G alatz - S ilistra :

7. O strov - S ilistra - Calarasi :

8. G iurgiu - R u stchuk :

9. G alatz - T u rn u Severin

10. T urnu Severin - Bazas :

S. fi, D.

1. B raila - Valcov :

Three times weekly in each direction.

Daily in each direction.Six times weekly in each direction.Several times daily in each direction.About every tw enty minutes in each direction. Daily in each direction.

Once weekly in each direction.

Four times daily in each direction. Twice daily »

Three times daily »Twice weekly »

Three times daily in each direction.)> )) )) )) )>

Once weekly » »

Twice weekly » »

Daily in each direction.

D. D. S. G.

1. P assau - Linz :

2. L inz - V ienna :

3. Grein - Melk - K rem s - Hollen- burg :

4. V ienna - B ra tis lav a :

5. V ienna - B udapest :

6. B u d ap es t - Mohacs :

7. B udapest - Zem un :

8. Zem un - B elgrade - Orsova - G alatz :

9. G alatz - Tulcea - Sulina

10. Sabac (Save) - B elgrade :

11. Belgrade - D ubrovica :

12. Zem un - S lankam en - T itel :

13. Szeged - T itel - Zem un :

The Pre-W ar Service was as follows :

Daily in each direction.

Four times weekly in each direction. Three » »Three » »Twice weekly DailyThree times »

6

— 8 2 —

M . F . T. R.

1. Dom os - Visegrad - B u d ap es t :

2. Baja - Apatin :3. V ukovar - N ovisad :

4. Zem un - Belgrade - G a la tz :

First Serbian S. S. Co.

1. B elgrade - D ubrovica :

2. B elgrade - Sabac (Save) :

3. B elgrade - R ad u jev ac :

4. B elgrade - Zem un :

N . F. R.

1. G ala tz - B raila :

2. B raila - G alatz - Tulcea - Sulina :

3. M acin - B ra ila :

4. G iurgiu - R u stc h u k :

Daily.Six times weekly.

Six » »Three » »

Daily in each direction.

Three times weekly in each direction. Twice » » » »Hourly » » »

Four times daily » » »Three times weekly » » »Twice daily » » »

Five times daily » » »

Platzhalter

Tableau 1 1 . — • T r a f i c a u x P o r t e s d e F e r e n 1910 e t 1911

Table 11. — T r a f f i c , I r o n G a t e s 1 9 1 0 - 1 9 1 1

An

né

e

— Y

ea

r

C o m p a g n i e

C o m p a n y

A LA REMONTEU p s t r e a m

C h a l a n d s

B a r g e s

A l a D e s c e n t e D o v a s t r e a m

C h a l a n d s

B a r g e s

T o t a l

C h a l a n d s

B a r g e s

A LA REMONTEU p s t r e a m

V a p e u r s —

A LA DESCENTED o w n s t r e a m

- S t e a m e r s

T o t a l

T a x e s

p e r ç u e s

T a x e s

l e v i e d

ChargésLoaded I f

hO

H

ChargésLoaded l a

To

ta

l

C h a r g é sLoaded I f

To

ta

l

g

i 6" Tax

ésT

axed

To

ta

l i

I e2 Tax

ed

To

ta

l

Remo

rque

urs

Tags

Ta

xé

sT

axed

| J

Hel

lers

Hel

lers

MMI I

QuintauxQuintals i l § i

QuintauxQuintals No

mbre

Numb

er

1 1QuintauxQuintals No

mbre

Numb

er

1 9 1 0 2 5 0 1 ,1 0 3 ,0 6 2 4 8 1 731 4 6 6 1 ,9 5 2 ,4 8 9 9 9 5 6 5 7 1 8 3 ,0 5 5 ,5 5 1 5 8 0 1 ,2 9 6 7 1 3 2 1 0 9 2 3 7 0 5 187 8 9 2 1 ,4 1 0 3 9 7 5 5 9 ,3 2 9 91

D . D . S . G .......................................1911 3 9 9 1 ,6 7 2 ,3 5 8 1 0 8 5 0 7 2 8 3 1 ,0 0 6 ,0 2 3 1 5 4 4 3 7 6 8 2 2 ,6 7 8 ,3 8 1 2 6 2 9 4 4 5 6 9 2 4 8 8 1 7 5 6 2 2 2 8 7 9 0 1 ,1 3 1 4 7 6 4 2 2 ,2 9 5 5 0

1 9 1 0 9 4 4 2 7 ,0 6 2 2 3 5 3 2 9 141 6 1 4 ,1 1 7 1 2 f i 2 6 7 2 3 5 1 ,0 7 1 ,1 7 9 361 5 9 6 2 7 3 2 8 2 5 5 5 2 7 7 2 1 5 4 9 2 5 5 0 4 9 7 1 8 4 ,6 2 1 11

M . F . T . R ......................................1 91 1 1 3 7 5 8 5 ,1 0 8 1 3 2 2 6 9 9 4 4 3 8 ,8 1 2 1 3 7 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 ,0 2 3 ,8 3 0 2 6 9 5 0 0 2 5 9 2 9 7 5 5 6 2 6 3 261 6 2 3 5 2 1 5 5 8 1 7 5 ,9 6 5 4 2

1 9 1 0 N a v i g a t i o n r o u m a i n e . . . 12 7 7 4 5 ,4 1 1 11 1 3 8 67 3 0 3 ,3 7 9 67 1 2 9 1 8 9 1 ,0 4 8 ,7 9 0 7 8 2 6 7 1 7 6 10 1 8 6 171 9 1 8 0 3 4 7 1 9 1 6 8 ,5 2 7 4 0

1911R u m a n i a n N a v i g a t i o n .

1 2 8 6 8 3 ,2 9 7 14 1 4 2 6 5 3 6 0 ,4 6 9 8 6 151 1 9 3 1 ,0 4 3 ,7 6 6 1 0 0 2 9 3 1 5 5 11 1 6 6 1 5 8 7 1 6 5 3 1 3 1 8 1 8 6 ,4 2 9 41

1 9 1 0 N a v i g a t i o n s e r b e .............. 4 2 1 8 7 ,1 7 3 4 3 8 5 31 8 5 ,9 8 3 5 3 8 4 7 3 2 7 3 ,1 5 6 9 6 1 6 9 8 2 81 1 6 3 8 8 81 1 6 9 1 7 0 1 6 2 3 5 ,2 7 9 21

1 91 1S e r b i a n N a v i g a t i o n . . . .

7 3 3 1 0 ,0 9 5 41 1 1 4 3 8 9 5 ,3 3 6 6 0 9 8 111 4 0 5 ,4 3 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 6 73 1 7 9 1 0 7 7 4 181 2 1 6 1 4 7 4 2 ,6 7 5 8 1

1 9 1 0 N a v i g a t i o n d e l ’A l l e m a ­ 3 6 2 2 7 ,1 7 4 4 4 0 4 1 2 ,8 0 0 2 3 2 7 4 0 2 3 9 ,9 7 4 2 7 6 7 2 8 ,9 3 1 7 0

1 91 1g n e d u S u d .......................

S o u t h G e r m a n N a v i g a t . i o n 31 1 8 8 ,4 0 1 31 5 1 5 ,0 3 3 2 6 31 3 6 2 0 3 ,4 3 4 2 6 6 2 2 1 ,7 1 8 5 8

1 9 1 0 21 8 3 ,1 9 4 16 3 7 11 4 4 ,3 5 0 m 3 3 3 2 1 2 7 ,5 4 4 3 8 7 0 2 8 4 3 2 2 3 8 31 51 12 1 5 ,7 8 2 7 5A u t r e s c o m p a g n i e s . . . .

191 1 A l l o t h e r s ................................ 7 9 1 9 2 ,4 3 6 1 5 9 4 12 3 0 ,0 7 1 8 2 9 4 91 2 2 2 ,5 3 4 97 1 8 8 6 9 11 8 0 6 4 1 6 " 8 0 1 3 3 2 7 1 9 ,6 5 7 2 3

1 9 1 0 5 7 0 2 ,7 7 3 ,0 7 6 7 9 0 1 ,3 6 0 7 1 5 3 ,0 4 3 ,1 1 8 3 9 0 1 ,1 0 5 1 ,2 8 5 5 ,8 1 6 ,1 9 4 1 ,1 8 0 2 ,4 6 5 1 ,2 7 2 5 8 7 1 ,8 5 9 1 ,2 6 4 5 0 0 1 ,7 6 4 2 ,5 3 6 1 ,8 8 7 9 9 2 ,4 7 2 0 8T o t a l .............................

1911 6 4 7 3 ,6 3 1 ,6 3 2 3 1 0 1 ,1 5 7 4 9 7 1 ,9 4 5 ,7 4 4 5 4 5 1 ,0 4 2 1 ,3 4 4 5 ,5 7 7 ,3 7 6 8 5 5 2 ,1 9 9 1 ,1 5 8 6 1 0 1 ,7 9 8 1 ,1 5 3 5 8 6 1 ,7 3 9 2 ,3 1 1 1 ,2 2 6 8 6 6 ,7 4 1 9 5

D i f f é r e n c e :D i f f e r e n c e :

E n p l u s — P l u s ............... 2 7 7 8 5 6 ,5 5 6 1 5 5 5 9 5 3 86 1 3 9

E n m o i n s — M i n u s . . . . 4 8 0 2 0 3 2 3 8 1 ,0 9 7 ,3 7 4 6 3 2 3 8 ,8 1 8 3 2 5 2 6 6 1 1 4 61 111 2 5 2 2 5 1 2 5 ,7 3 0 1 3

Autorités royales hongroises pour la navigation sur le Bas-Danube. A. No. 500/1911. Royal H ungarian A uthority for Lower D anube Shipping. Ad. No. 500/1911.

Tableau 12. — T r a f i c a u x P o r t e s d e F e r e n 1923 e t 1924.Table 12. T r a f f i c , I r o n G a t e s 1923-1924.

Statistiques de la Commission internationale du Danube. — Statistics of International Danube Commission.

An

né

es

—

Ye

ar

P a v i l l o n

F l a g

A LA REMONTE U p s t r e a m

Ch a l a n d s — B a r g e s

A l a D e s c e n t e D o w n s t r e a m

Ch a l a n d s — B a r g e s

T o t a l

C h a l a n d s — B a r g e s

A LA REMONTEU p s t r e a m

V a p e u r s —

A LA d e s c e n t e D o w n s t r e a m S t e a m e r s

T o t a lT o t a l

d e st a x e s p e r ç u e s

T o t a l T a x e s l e v i e dChargés

Loaded

Em

pty

HOH

ChargésLoaded

“ p-2 s> a h)

ChargésLoaded

Em

pty

iHOH

Rem

orq

ueu

rsT

ugs

Pas

sag

ers

Pas

sen

ger

To

ta

l

Rem

orq

ueu

rsT

ugs

pas

sag

ers

Pas

sen

ger

To

ta

l

Rem

orq

ueu

rsT

ugs

£ ®§cc

$ s Francs Cent.

No

mb

reN

um

ber

QuintauxQuintals

No

mb

reN

um

ber

!

No

mb

reN

um

ber

Q uintauxQuintals

No

mb

reN

um

ber H

OH

No

mb

re

Nu

mb

er

QuintauxQuintals

No

mb

reN

um

ber

1923 Allemand .................... 187 864,393 27 214 33 149,530 190 223 220 1,013,932 217 437 59 — 59 58 9 58 117 — 310,610 27

1924 G e r m a n ......................... 212 1,067,724 29 241 39 158,549 176 215 251 1,226,273 205 456 71 — 71 70 — 70 141 — 326,644 98

1923 A u tr ic h ie n .................... 205 850,347 74 279 123 386,529 192 315 328 1,236,876 266 594 120 53 173 118 51 169 238 104 436,275 31

1924 A ustrian ...................... 335 1,338,423 144 469 253 771,704 210 463 578 2,110,127 354 932 157 17 204 156 47 203 313 94 663,724 20

1923 Français ....................... 3 11,501 1 4 1 3,082 14 15 4 14,583 15 19 — — — 4 — 4 4 — 20,907 60

1924French ........................... 2 13,800 — 2 — — — — 2 13,800 — 2 4 — 4 6 — 6 10 — 3,589 97

1923 G r e c ............................... 4 10,380 — 4 — 1,077 5 5 11,457 5 9 3 — 3 3 — 3 6 — 15,865 85

1924G r e e k ............................. 9 29,712 — 9 2 7,200 3 5 11 36,912 3 14 1 — 1 — — — 1 — 7,809 43

1923 H o n g ro is ....................... 126 523,593 32 160 58 147,118 124 182 186 670,711 156 342 86 — 86 84 — 84 170 — 210,689 23

1924 H ungarian .................. 202 857,834 8 210 76 243,680 127 203 278 1,101,514 135 413 92 1 93 86 1 87 178 2 3 0 2 ,9 3 9 6 9

1 9 2 3 Hollandais .................. 1 4 4 4 ,0 2 9 — 14 13 6 1 ,3 1 3 8 21 2 7 105,322 8 3 5 — — 32,480 2 5

1924D utch ...........................

3 6 150,334 1 3 7 2 3 7 1 ,1 2 3 18 41 5 9 221,457 18 78 16 — 16 15 — 15 31 — 58,142 15

1923 R o u m a in ....................... 50 220,311 77 127 95 452,219 77 172 145 672,530 154 299 61 70 131 61 71 132 122 141 155,634 93

1924R o u m a n ia n ..................

52 286,545 51 103 65 318,564 36 101 117 605,109 87 204 46 78 124 44 77 121 90 155 143,130 05

1923 246 1,158,421 67 313 38 151,380 259 297 284 1,309,801 326 610 87 106 193 86 104 190 173 210 340,948 42

1924Serb-Croat-Slovenc . . 227 1,054,487 83 310 106 442,139 232 338 333 1,496,626 315 648 82 78 160 81 78 159 164 156 403,273 33

1923 Tchécoslovaque........... 55 205,985 8 63 38 133,829 36 74 93 339,814 44 137 36 — 36 35 — 35 71 — 88,987 04

1924Czechoslovak .............. 61 261,552 19 100 62 203,369 35 97 143 464,921 54 197 36 — 26 37 — 37 73 — 124,430 39

1923 Anglais ........................ — — — — — — — —- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

1924English .........................

6 25,317 — 6 1 3,053 1 2 7 28,370 1 8 1 — 1 1 — 1 2 — 56,359 —

1923 I t a l i e n ...........................

1924 2 4 500

1923 T o t a i892 3,888,960 286 1,178 399 11,486,0861905 1,304 1,291 5,375,046 1,191 2,482 452 22!) 681 449 226 675 901 455 1,612,398 90

1924 1,152 5,085,728 335 1,487 627 |2,219,381 |838 1,465 1,779 7,305,109 1,173 2,952 508 201 712 498 203 701 1,006 407 2,040,543 19

Diff. : E n plus — Plus 260 11 ,196,768 49 309 2 2 8 733,295 161 4 8 8 1,930,063 470 56 31 49 26 105 4 2 8 ,1 4 4 29

1D iïf . : E n m o in s — M in u s i 67 18 25 23 4 8

L a Commission élal>ore égalem ent des s ta tis tiques indkjiinnt le trafic pur principales catégories tie m archandises, 'flie. Commission nlso keeps s ta tis tics showing above inoveinfuts l>y principal classes of goods.

— 85 —

T able 13. — I r o n G a t e s .

Upstream traffic.

YearW heat W heat B arley Maize Oats Millet Oil and

GasolenePar- Coal Wood Salt Misc. Total

Quintals

1923

1924

179,709

302,566

66,205

307,227

92,577

134,735

316,153

751,322

250,978

393,421

37,262

51,762

1,426,106

2,021,145

51,516

91,832

441,233

323,193

387,798

150,625

142,700 496,723

557,910

3,888,960

5,085,728

From In ternational D anube Commission Statistics.The above is suggestive only and intended to ind icate the sort of information available for traffic a t th e Iron Gates.

Table 14. — S t a t i s t i c s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e E u r o p e a n D a n u b e C o m m i s s i o n .

1. Boats of each na t io n a li ty leaving the Danube, divided according to flag and registered tonnage.

2. Classification of the same boats according to the ir tonnage.3. B oats entering the D anube under ba llas t and boats leaving the D anube under ballast.4 . The num ber of boa ts of com panies m ain ta in ing a regular service on the D anube.5. Boats loading a t Sulina, divided according to flag and tonnage and w hether or not the

boats were loaded in the p o r t or in th e roadstead.6. Boats hav ing been loaded ups tream and those, hav ing tak en their cargo p a r tly upstream

and par ty in th e roadstead of Sulina, divided according to flag and the weight of loading so accomplished.

7. B oats en te ring and leaving th e D anube under ballast.8. Beceipts collected by, th e Cashier’s Office in Sulina.9. General com parison of vessels of each na tiona li ty leaving the D anube.10. Comparison of tonnage according to categories of tariff and shipping dues paid.11. Loading effected in roadsteads of Sulina and in the in terio r ports of the river.12. Vessels tak in g refuge in Sulina.13. S ta tis tics of t re a tm e n t given in E uropean D anube Commission’s hospital a t Sulina.14. S ta tis tics of epidemic cases t re a te d in E uropean D anube Commission’s hospital a t Sulina.15. Fines, etc. imposed by police betw een Braila and Sulina.16. W recks and accidents in th e Lower Danube.17. Sea-going vessels and lighters wrecked a t the m ouths of the Danube and in the river ;

vessels repaired.18. Goods exported th rough th e Sulina m outh .19. D estination of goods exported b y Sulina m outh.20. D epths of w a te r in Sulina arm.21. Meteorological tab le and technical observations regarding Sulina m outh .22. C hart showing location of the en trance channel and the ends of the je tties and contour

of the bar.23. Table showing when the r iver has been frozen over.Tables 15, 16 and 17 are insetted betw een pages 86 and 87.

Tableau 18. — T r a f i c m a r c h a n d i s e s .

Table 18. — F r e i g h t T r a f f i c .

Kilomèlres-ionnes — Ton-Kilomelers.

1911 1912 1913 1914 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924

Lloyd bavarois — B avarian Lloyd .

D. D. S. G. — D. D. S. G...................C10 tchécoslovaque de navigation sur

le D anube — Czechoslovak D anubeNavigation C o ......................................

M. F . T. R ..................................................S.H.S. Syndicat— S. H . S. SyndicateS. R . D ........................................................N. F . R .......................................................

No

1,199,350,329Not

•405,770,414Non

i encore cons tit N ot organised

1,296,860,933 encore constit

N ot organised

encore constit N ot organised

-

ué

1,127,876,020ué

lé

13,000,000 67,000,000

52,957,200

*64,540,654

60,236,890116,000,000

82,000,000

30,893,942

79,496,26072,000,000

118,000,000

266,988,40934,024,900

86.377.00094.250.000

170,000,000

338,602,65879,500,000

121,590,998108,750,000

183,000,000

472,896,993100,241,219

*246,960,454345,402.745121,455,642104,100,000

* Ce chilfre ne com prend pas le tonnage des chalands qui n ’appartiennen t pas à la compagnie.• Does no t include tonnage of barges no t belonging to the Company.

Tableau 19. — T r a n s p o r t d e p a s s a g e r s .

Table 19. — P a s s e n g e r T r a f f i c

Kilom'elres-passagers. — Passenger-Kilomelers.

d . d . s. g ....................................................................................Compagnie tchécoslovaque de navigation sur le D anube

— Czechoslovak D anube N avigation Co...................M. F. T. R ...................................................................................Compagnie serbe de navigation—Serbian N avigation Co.

Syndicat S. H . S. — S. H . S. Synd ica te ............

N. F . R .........................................................................................S. R . D ..........................................................................................

G alatz-G iurg iu* ........................................................................

B ra lla -V a lco v ..............................................................

1911 1912

108,197,257 112,753,287Non encore constitué

Not organised 41,511,17413,826,000 19,742,000

Non encore constitué N ot organised

Non encore constitué N ot organised

1913

95,470,885

25,171,000

1920

38,482,552

64.073.000

30.770.000

2,489,100

1921 1922

79,604,4984,587,840

1923

81,387,8741,681,420

Fusion avec le Syndicat S. H . S.

* P o u r le s a n n é e s p o s t é r i e u r e s à l ’a n n é e 1 9 2 1 , a u c u n c h i f f r e n ’e s t fo u rn i . L e s e rv ic e a p r o b a b l e m e n t é t é s u p p r im é .* N o f ig u re s g iv e n a f t e r 1 9 2 1 . S e rv ic e p r e s u m a b l y d i s c o n t in u e d .

1924

78,134,774744,128

49,258,300

48,731,000 48,686,000 70,576,000 56,546,000

20,300,000 28,350,000 21,870,000 20,000,000

1,544,790 — — —

6,136,000 11,144,200 14,440,000 12,183,100

Tableau 15. — E m b o u c h u r e d u B r a s d e S o u l i n /

E xportations par catégories de marchandises. (En tonnes sauf où in. ^

1911

autrement.)

D e s t i n a t i o n

Froment — W h e a t ....................Seigle — R y e ...............................Maïs — Maize .............................Orge — B arley .............................Avoine — Oats.............................Fèves — Beans.............................Millet — M illet............................Graine de colza — Colza seed .

» de raves — Turnip seed» de lin — Flax seed . . . .» de chanvre — Hemp

seedSon — B r a n .................................Bois — Wood :

Planches — Boards (quantité — quant.)(en m3 — cub. m.)

Chêne— Oak (quant.— quant.) (en tonnes -—• tons)

Fûts vides — E m pty barrelsBenzine.........................................Bétail (par tête) — Oxen (head)Cellulose.........................................Ciment — C ernent......................Cuir —L eather.............................Farine — F l o u r ..........................Débris de fer — Iron scrap . . . .Fromage — C heese ....................Graine de moutarde -— Mustard

seed ...........................................Goudron —-Tar............................Huiles minérales — Mineral oilLentilles — L e n t i ls ....................Naphte — N aphtha ....................Noix — N u t s ..............................Oignons — O nions......................Peaux — Skins.............................Pois — Peas..................................Pétrole — Petroleum ..................Pommes de terre — P o ta to e s . .Poissons — Fish...........................Résidus de pétrole — Petroleum

waste.........................................Riz — Rice .................................Sel — S a it.....................................Graine de tournesol — Sun­

flower s e e d ...............................Sucre — S ugar.............................Tabac — T obacco......................Tourteaux de colza — Colza

cakes .........................................Tourteaux de graine de lin —

Linseed cakes ........................Marchandises diverses — Va­

rious goods ...............................

Allemagne

G erm any

Autriche

A ustria

Belgique

Belgium

Bulgarie

Bulgaria

10,3433,595

59,39060,483

1,4542,522

10,082

4,729

10,106

36,400216

6,3411,315

10 1

1 0

588,92135,922

281,949142,040

15,78323,151

2,836285

11,539548

1 0

3,561 1 , 6 6 862

6,877 —

——

1,577 23,938

9006,053

173

919345

218

781

1,769759

1,685 21 125 —

261 — 9173

133,586

2943

—

109 1,743 —

527—

1,030 331

1 0 — 10989

2 0 0 — 1 0 0 —

531 85 892 693

D anem ark

D enm ark

Egypte

Egypt

Espagne

Spain

France

France

Grande-B retagne

G reat B rita in Greece

2 , 1 0 0 _ 188,907 45,310 12,5551,568 — --- 9,476 7,806 —

59,158 — 65,848 87,581 71,802 1,71614,273 — — 8,834 103,936 1,631

— — — 7,279 32,385 1,080— 25 — 36,750 2,752 2 0 2— — — 392 2,704 —

— — — — 1,638 —

_ 2321 0 0

--- 127,506 2,225 37,083 1 0 , 8 8 8 46,127

— — — 4,995 — —

---- —. . — 684--- — — — 176--- — — 160 248 427

2,329 177

—3,432

—633 3,856 119

---- — — 693 103

1,743 z---- — — 268 —

7,5645 —

---- — —1,137

— —

--- 3 —1,927

154--- 8 — 320 313 5

1,922

---—

1—2 1 2 —

—

— — — 625 — —

--- — — 252 14 80

Statistiques de la Commission européenne du Danube. — Statistics G. E. D.

Table 15. — - S u l i n a E n t r a n c e .

Exports by Class of Goods. (In tons except where otherwise indicated.)

1911

Pays-Bas

N etherlands

Hongrie

H ungary

Italie

Ita ly

Xorvège

Norway

Portuga l

Portuga l

Russie

R ussia

Suède

Sweden

T urquie

T urkey

G ibraltar (p r dem ander

instructions) G ibraltar (to aw ait

instructions)

IAlgérie

Algeria

226,062 1,435 207,837 2,403137,306 — 4,512 30,733209,809 26,841 256,068 12,865

94,500 315 1,079 7,63336,771 1,642 20,922 —

5,712 858 1,099 —

464 — 532 —

495 — — —7,100 — >— —

214 •—■ — —

3293,612 2,366

204,002 — 91,858 —— — — —— — - — —— — — ——— — 4,474 —

156 2 0 392 —— — — —-— ---- — —

3,765 773 183 —

— — 2,358 —— — — —

778 — — —

87 — — —— — —

532 — — —— — — —— — — —— — — —

8,523 45 32 —— — — —— — — —— — — —

_2 0 0 — 37 —

— — —

46 — — —— — — —— — 17 —

565 — — —

343 — — —

796 32

•

1 2 1

5,5481,099

48341

1021,370

14,785

947856

55327

50

192,156

3,68722

18,24217

50

13 65

89 — 1

378

225

5

165 — 1,293

T o t a l : 4.308.497 tonnes et 775.225 mètres cubes.

95,336

594,29284,756

2,361

2,264

505

36550

Tunis

E tats-U nisd'Amérique

United S tates ol America

31,58719,306

734

4,014

10

559

1,671419

11

289

T otal

1,412,183232,119

1,766,036521,035126,114

75,08817,161

78025,016

762

62318,234

775,22519,306

5,7296

6844,6502,3438,4635,106

39,1802,724

7

3,405137

1,8161,1547,564

344313

15,1751,940

6891

1543,1491,922

454314229

1,490

348

4,954

— T o t a l : 4,308,497 tons and 775,225 c. m.

Tableau 16. — E m b o u c h u r e d u B r a s d e S o u l i n a .

Exportations, p a r catégories de marchandises. (En tonnes sauf où indiqué autrement.)

1923

D e s t i n a t i o n

Froment — W h e a t ....................

Seigle — R y c ...............................

Maïs — Maize .............................

Orge — B arley .............................

Avoine — Oats..............................

Fèves — Beans ....................

Millet...............................................Graine de colza — Colza seed .

» de lin — Lin s e e d ..........

d de chanvre — Hempseed ...........................

Pois — Peas...................................

Son — B r a n .................................

Farine — F lo u r ...........................

Bois — Wood :Planches (en mètres cubes) —

Boards (cub. m . ) ................

Chêne — O a k ..........................

Douves — Staves.....................Tourteaux de colza — Oil cakes

Noix — N u t s ...............................Pruneaux secs — Prunes Dried

Graines de courge — Pum pkinSeeds .........................................

Farine de colza — Colza Flour

Cuir — L e a th e r ..........................

Colle forte — G lu e ......................

Moutarde — M u s ta rd ................Bétail (par tête) - Oxen (Heads)

Marchandises diverses — V a­rious Goods ............................

Statistiques de la Commission européenne du Danube. Statistics C. L. D.

Allemagne

G erm any*

Algérie

Algeria

Belgique

Belgium j

1

Bulgarie

Bulgaria

1

D anem ark

D enm ark

_ 3,027 - __

1 , 2 1 0 -

16,682 22,783 87,683 1 0 0 31,619

176,013 43,019 258,529 — 19,360

594 1,576 52,993 —

7,087 — 16,537 —

475 .— 156 — —

— — 2 2 0

— —

329

—

854

— —

— —

217

—

500

3,369 11,499 3,652 918

— —

1,801

__

2,839 —

39 — 216 — —

758 — 108 — —

— — 127 —

818 1 , 0 0 0 — — —

580 — 46 — —

429 — 541 — —

— — 393 — —

623

1 1 8

240

1

2 0 5

|

Egypte

Egypt

4,766

5.329

331

943

248,662

2 0 4

2 0 J

1,±72

-

Y

12

95

Espigne

Sna^n

France

France

Grande-B retagne

Great Britain

1

Grèce

Greece

1,715 2,423

— — — —

— 25,115 76,967 2,389

— 12,669 25,441 18,320

— 12,935 1,359 2,770

W — 38,571 432 3,o53

x — 2,391 557 —

— 80 165 —

— — — —

—

— 167 — —

— 276 140 2,070

— — 268

127,787 139,352 247,357

k — — — —

— — — —

— 9,000 3,656 2 0

” — 1 2 1 34 7

— 4 23 1 0

— 95 _ 157

— — 2 , 0 0 0 —

— 3,000 — —

— 922 54 —

— 2,107 982 —

— — — 31

— 1.957 188 920

T able 16 . — S u l i n a E n t r a n c e .

Exports by Class of Goods. (In tons except where otherwise indicated.)

1923

Pays-Bas

N etherlands

1

Tunisie

Tunis

Italie

I ta ly

Norvège

Norway

Russie Suède

Sweden

T urquie

Turkey

G ibraltar (p r a tten d re les

instructions) G ibraltar (to aw ait

instructions)

Argentine

Argentina

Portugal

Portugal

Perse

Persia

Syrie

SyriaT otal

523 90 __ 6,909 —. — 14,687

320 — — — 240 — — — — — — — 1,770

90,852 1 , 0 0 0 77,325 13,894 — 9,145 65 70,538 — 3,955 — — 534,878

41,072 1 , 2 0 0 5,896 5,345 — — 1,874 54,630 — — — 1 668,698

1,362 24,454 _ — — 5 601 __ — — — 98,980

9,597 — 9,307 — — — 292 — — — — 237 86,556

55 — 1,150 — — — 52 — — — — — 4,836

1 0 1

— — — — — — — — — — , —

566

1 , 0 1 0 — 1,209 — — — — — — — — — 3,569

1,553 — 150 — — — — — — I — 4,906

2 0_ 134 — 585

~1,007

7,148 4,104 84,869— —

7,911 145 6,045 — 3,304

I>” 1

1 OS

1 1

I> 975,393

273 — 53 — — — 71 — — — — I — 17,713

119 — 26 — — — 52 — — — — 14 832

33 — 13 — — — — — — — 36 1,005

315 — 306 __ — 518 — — 83 15 3,088

— — — — — — — — — — — — 2 , 0 0 0

— — — — — — — — — — — — 4,818

8 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1,700

726 — — — — — — — — — — — 4,785

— — — —~

2,507 — — — — — 2,931

277

1

1,765

I

24 __

1

186 — — 296 — 423 7,037

T o t a l : 1.466.362 tonnes e t 975.393 mètres cubes. — T o t a l : 1,466,362 to n s and 975,393 c. m.

T ab leau 17. — E m b o u c h u r e d u B r a s d e S o u l i n a .

Exportations par catégories de marchandises. (En tonnes sauf où indiqué autrement.)

1924

Destination

1

Allemagne

Germany

1

Algérie

Algeria

I

Belgique

Belgium

Bulgarie

BulgariaDanemark

Denmark

Egypte

Egypt

Espagne

Spain

France

France

Grande-Bretagne

Great Britain

Froment — Wheat ..........................1

1,273 — 19,407 2,880 __ 2 0 — 1,986 1,500

Seigle — R y e .................................... | 959 — 663 — 1,105 — — 56 209

Mais — Maize ................................ 58,050 2,839 53,684 — 82,075 2 2 0 — 57,799 27,464

Orge — Barley.................................. 30,151 — 53,162 — 13,695 — — 10,286 10,477

Avoine — Oats ................................ 839 — 807 — •— — — — 957

Fèves — Beans ................................ 5,066 — 10,216 — 840 65 — 16,382 633

Millet...................................................... 6,471 — 130 — — — — 451 —■

Graine de colza — Colza Seed . . 30 — 42 — — — — — —

» de lin — Linseed ................ — — — — — — — — —

, de chanvre — HempS eed ..................................... — — —

Pois — Peas.......................................... 231 — 697 — — — — 548 —

Son — Bran .................................... 2,197 — 516 — 980 — — — 1,189

Farine — Flour ................................ 747 — — — — 1,799 — 146 159

Bois — Wood :Planches (en mètres cubes) —

23,040 2,756 271,165 125,802Boards (in Cub. m.) .............. 4,592 — ■—- — 104,937

Chêne —-O ak................................ — — — — — — — —

Douves — Staves ........................ — — — — — — — — —

Tourteaux de colza — Oil cakes. . . 6,517 — — 6,271 — — 3,314 2 2 0

Noix — Nuts ..................................... 1,597 — 375 — — 240 — 541 96

Graines de courge — Pumpkin Seeds .............................................. 1 , 2 2 0 — 30 — 1,054 — 2 1 2 —

Moutarde — M ustard ...................... 834 — 78 — — — — 241 —

Lentilles — Lentils ........................ 99 — 1 0 — — — — 374 —

Cuir — Leather .............................. 1,762 — — — — — — 5,000 —

Colle forte — G Sue ........................ 256 — — — — 9 — 35 42

Pois chiches — Chick Peas ........... — — — — — 314 —

Pruneaux secs — Dried prunes . . . 24 — - — — — — —

Bétail (par tête) — Oxen (Heads) — — — — — — — — —

Marchandises diverses — Various goods ................................................. 952 — 531 — — 57

1 -

1,513 192

Statistique de la Commission européenne du Danube. — Statistics C.E.D.

Table 17. — S u l i n a E n t r a n c e .

Exports by Class of Goods. (In tons except where otherwise indicated.)

1924

Grèce

Greece

Pays-Bas

Netherlands

Hongrie

H ungary

Italie

I ta ly

Norvège

Norway

Russie

Russia

Syrie

Syria

Turquie

Turkey

G ib ra lta r (pour a tten d re des instructions)

G ibraltar (to await

instructions)

c Argentine

Argentina T o t a l

1 , 4 8 1 5 , 8 3 4 __ 1 4 , 6 7 7 — — 4 0 U 4 5 , 3 4 5 3 , 7 4 2 9 8 , 5 4 5

3 5 2 , 7 9 7 — 1 8 1 — — — — — — 6 , 0 0 5

4 , 5 9 6 7 9 , 0 4 8 — 5 1 , 8 9 2 — — — 3 5 0 2 2 4 , 5 4 6 — 6 4 2 , 5 6 3

5 , 0 5 6 2 3 , 9 0 7 — 8 , 8 5 8 — — — 1 0 0 6 1 , 5 3 6 — 2 1 7 , 2 2 8

7 8 4 6 8 6 — 1 2 , 1 7 9 — — — — 2 6 0 — 1 6 , 5 1 2

1 , 1 3 2 1 , 6 5 5 — 1 2 , 9 3 6 — — 1 2 3 — 1 , 5 1 6 — 5 0 , 5 6 4

1 6 3 1 , 5 2 8 — 2 7 8 — — — — 6 5 5 - 9 , 6 7 6

— 1 5I

— ■ — 6 — 9 3

__ _ — _ _ _

— 3 5 8 — 5 0 — — — ■— — — 1 , 8 8 4

1 2 0 1 , 0 3 6 — — — —- — ■ — — - — 6 , 0 3 8

6 , 6 7 3 2 0 — 2 1 9 — — 5 1 0 1 0 7 — — 1 0 , 3 8 0

3 7 0 , 4 7 2 9 , 0 0 9 — 1 0 1 , 7 6 4 — — 6 8 , 5 5 6 2 , 1 8 0 4 2 7 6 ,1 0 4 1 , 0 9 0 , 8 0 4

8 3 5 1 4 5

— — — —

3

—__

1 7 , 3 0 5

4 8 8 7 1 2 4 4 — — — 9 — — 4 , 0 2 1

1 3 6 4 5 3 — 5 0 — — 4 3 1 9 8 I l l — 3 , 5 0 7

2 4 1 7 0 — — — — — — ■ — — 1 , 3 4 7

5 0 — — 2 5 6 — — — — — — 7 8 9

— — — 9 0 0 — — — — — - — 7 , 6 6 2

— 3 0 — 1 0 — — — ■ — — — 3 8 2

— — ■ — 9 3 — — — — — — 4 0 7

3 4 — — — — — — 1 9 — — 5 3

1 7 3 3 3 7 6 7 — — 1 8 4 6 7 2 6 5 3 4 , 7 3 7

Total : 1.099.722 tonnes et 1.090.804 mètres cubes. — Total 1,099,722 tons and 1,090,804 c. m.

Annex III.

RIVER FLEETS.

In general, the type of barges used on the Danube is the same throughout all sections of the river. There are some differences, however, which are worthy of note. The greatest number of barges are those of the type built by the Austrian and Hungarian companies before the war. These have a moulded hull and carry about 650 to 700 tons cargo. Their draught runs between 1.9 and 2.1 meters. While, of course, there are many variations from this type, there are two principal exceptions, which are the barges owned and operated by the Greeks on the lower river and the standard 1,000-ton barge of the Bavarian Lloyd. The Greek barges are in general similar to those described bu t are designed to carry 1,000 to 1,500 tons and draw as much as 3.2 meters. The draught of the Greek barges makes them unpractical for use above the Iron Gates. Consequently, they engage in traffic in Boumanian and Bulgarian ports, almost to the exclusion of work elsewhere. The Bavarian Lloyd barges, which have all been built during and after the war, are in general of 1,000 tons. They are so designed, however — that is, made longer and wider than the Greek barges — th a t their draught when loaded to capacity is only 2.3 meters. While a t first sight i t would appear th a t the Bavarian Lloyd barge is in excess of w hat can be economically employed in the upper stretches of the river, no doubt they have been built in anticipation of the completion of the Bhine-Main-Danube Canal, and also of the realisation of the 2-meter project which has been worked upon fora num ber of years in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

The tug boats on the upper river are practically all paddle-wheel steamers, and run from about 250 to 1,400 h.p. There are only a few boats of 1,000 or more h.p., and these are used almost exclusively in the work through the Iron Gates Section. A t and below Budapest there is an increasing num ber of screw boats, these being particularly numerous in Boumanian waters. The only screw tug noted a t the Iron Gates was the one belonging to the Dutch Company ; it is used principally to assist self-propelled barges in passing the most difficult sections.

The development of self-propelled barges on the river seems to be the most im portan t change in the type of equipm ent which has appeared in recent years. Some of these barges are equipped w ith steam m achinery and others with Diesel motors. The increasing efficiency of the latter has led to their being installed in the m ost recent boats of this type. At present regular services are m aintained by the Dutch Company, and jointly by the Bavarian Lloyd and Czechoslovak Navigation Company with this type of boat. I t is thought th a t for small cargoes and for service in cargoes of crude oil and its derivatives these boats will find an in­creasing application on the river.

The large passenger boats are almost w ithout exception paddle-wheel steamers, except those used on the section below Braila, and the largest have a draft of from 1.6 to 1.7 meters. AH boats of this type are considerably handicapped by the necessity of making their construction correspond to the bridge clearances.

The tables following give in such detail as was made available information on the principal companies operating on the Danube.

FLO TTE D A N U BIEN N E — DANUBE F L E E T 1 9 2 4.

B ateaux de voyageurs. Passenger Steamers.

Remorqueurs

Tugs

Chalands

Barges

Chalands il m oteurs

Self-propelled barges

B ateaux-citernes

Tanks

Bateaux-citernes à m oteur

Self-propelled tanks a n d barges

Nombre.

Number.

H . P.

H. P.

Nombre

Number

H . P.

H . P.

Nombre

N um ber

Tonnage

Tonnage

Nombre

Number

Tonnage

Tonnage

H . P.

H . P.

Nombre

Number

Tonnage

Tonnage

Nomb

Numb

Tonnage

Tonnage

H . P .

H . P.

Lloyds bavarois - Bavarian Lloyd 16 10,260 90 86,367 7 2,871 *1,700 4 3,842 2 1,256 660Autres compagnies allemandes —

Other German companies . . . 31 14,740 192 117,800 14 3,129 1,700

D. D. S. G............................................. 31 18,040 43 23,290 424 232,965 8 3,795 2,920 19 13,137 — — —

S ü d - d e u t s c h e ................................... — 3 1,530 7 3,296 5 3,250 1,200 5 3,902 — — ----Erdex .................................................... __ — — __ 4 480 1,060 — — - — ----Wiener Baustofîe A. G...................... 1 * 350 17 * 5,000

C o n tin en ta le ....................................... — — 1 700 5 3,220 4 2,164 1,000 — — 4 2,240 1 ,2 0 0

Clc tchécoslovaque de navigation —Czechoslovak Navigation Co. . . 2 738 9 5,987 120 78,744 8 3,800 3,120 — — — —

M. F. T. R ............................................ 48 11,292 30 14,010 200 112,421 2 1,239 320 5 3,791 - — —

M. B. R ............................................. — — 3 1,680 24 20,907 — — — — — - — —Autres compagnies hongroises —

Other Hungarian companies . . 5 282 15 2,469 60 28,780 2 615 380 2 1,410 — —

Syndicat S.H .S. - S.H .S. Syndicate. 24 8,695 59 26,623 520 320,969 31 24,752 — — —Autres compagnies S.H .S. —

Other S.U.S. Companies . . . 1 3 1 1,065 352 7,620 3743 127,660 — — — 3 2,098 - — —

N. F. R ...................................................... 19 6,170 23 11,790 151 95,405 2 700 470 12 5,102 — — —S. R. D ...................................................... 3 1,580 16 3,315 71 81,568 — — — 13 11,522 - — —Autres compagnies roumaines —

Other Roum anian companies. . — — 48 11,110 279 255,566

Navires étrangers enregistrés enRoumanie — Foreign vesselsregistered in Roum anie :

Navires grecs — Greek vessels — — 28 6,720 168 168,485» anglais — English » — — 1 150 5 5,025» français — French » — — 19 8,970 78 70,976» italiens — Italian » — — 3 650 11 13,950» beiges — Belgian » — — 3 900 9 6,725» bulgares — Bulgarian » — — — — 5 5,025 — — — — — — — —

Navires bulgares — Bulgarianv e s s e l s ............................................ — — 7 1,440 68 8,747 — —

T o t a l ................. 145 47,862 394 154,304 2,878 1,849,801 56 22,043 13,8 70 94 69,456 j 6 j 3,496 1,860

* A p p ro x im a ti f A pproxim ate

— 8 9 —

BAVARIAN LLOYD (B. L.).

Stock owned :

German Reich Bavaria Deutsche Bank Privately Subsidy

Preferred

23 */, % 23 V.3 % 53 V. %

None

Common

13 % 8 %

54 % 25 % } 79 %

Fleet

T y p e

TugsBargesSelf-propelled barges Tank bargesSelf-propelled ta n k barges

Total

Year

19241924192419241924

Number Tonnage

16 _90 86,367

7 2,8714 3,8422 1,256

119 94,336

Horse-power

10,260

1,700

660

12,620

Company organised ju s t before beginning of w ar, hence no figures for 1913 are given. P resent condition : Good. In use, a b o u t 80 per cent.

Agencies.

City

RatisbonDeggendorfPassauLinzViennaBratislavaBudapestOsekBelgradeOrsovaTurnu-SeverinGiurgiuBrailaBucharestSofiaLorn PalankaBustchukMunichBerlinHamburgAschaffenburgBamburgWurzburgNuremburgDuisburgFrankfort-on-Main

K ind of organisation.

Head office, Agency Represented by affiliated concern Agency AgencyBranch office for Austria, 3 agencies AgencyBranch office for Hungary, 2 agencies AgentBranch office S.H.S., AgencyAgencyAgencyAgencyRepresentativeRepresentative

Represented by “ Bulgarian Lloyd ”

RepresentativeRepresentativeRepresentative

Represented by “ Donau-Main-Rhein Schiffahrts A.-G. (Demerag)

Port

Ratisbon

Port facilities.

Quay W arehouses

530 m. Three warehouses

E quipm ent

Joint use of govern­ment cranes (no cranes owned)

R em arks

Agency building, workshop, oil- storage plant, storehouse for technical material, coal-yard.

— 9 0 —

P o rt

Passau

Deggendorf

Linz

Vienna

Budapest

Budafok

MohacsNovisad

Lom Palanka

Rustchuk

Quay

132 m. 77 »

330 m. (leased)

80 m.

266 m.70 »

(joint use with Neuner

and Co.)

280 m.93 »

70 m.

W arehouses

One warehouse ; two grain-silo ; two warehouse - shant­ies.

One warehouse ;One auxiliary ware­

house ; one ware­house building; one warehouse.

Four warehouses.

(Landing place for wine)

E quipm ent

One half portal crane ; 1 pneumatic grain conveyor ; one jib- crane ; one floating crane.

Two revolving steam cranes (leased)

One electric double crane ; one revolv­ing steam crane ; one warehouse jib- crane ; one floating crane ; one ware­house crane.

Two floating cranes.

R em arks

Agency building coal-yards.

Agency building.

Coal-yard

Agency building ; workshop, elec­trical moving plat­form, two electrical elevators; one land­ing stage ; coal­yard.

A gency building ; workshop, store­house for technical materials landing stages ; coal-yards.

Coal-yardCoal-yard

Landing stage ; hand crane ; pontoon.

Landing stage ; hand crane ; pontoon.

ER ST E DONAU-DAM PFSCHIFFAHRTS-GESELLSCHAFT. (D. D. S. G.)

35,750 shares of stock, 1,050 A .K ., e a c h ............................Stock owned by Danube Navigation Company, LondonStock owned by Private O w n e r s ..........................................Subsidy — None.

Fleet.

Type

Passenger-steamers ...................................

Tugs

247,537,500 Austrian Kr.19 per cent.81 per cent.

Barges

Self-propelled barges

Tank barges

Total

Year No. Tonnage H orsepow er

1913 48 — 22,5201924 31 — 18,040

Difference — 17 — — 4,480

1913 82 37,3001924 43 — 23,290

Difference — 39 — — 14,010

1913 8 6 8 472,764 —

1924 424 232,965Difference — 444 — 239,799 —

1913 1 2 4,475 3,5801924 8 3,795 2,920

Difference — 4 — 680 — 660

1913 —

1924 19 13,137 —

Difference + 19 + 13,137 —

1913 1 , 0 1 0 377,239 63,4001924 525 249,897 54,250

Difference — 458 — 227,342 — 19,150

Present condition : Good. In use, 81 per cent.

— 91 —

P lace

Ratisbon ...................................Deggendorf.................................Passau..........................................Obernzell...................................Engelhartszell...........................Niederranna .............................W esenufer.................................Obermuhl .................................Neuhaus .....................................A schach ......................Brandstatt-Eferdmg .............XVilhering...................................Linz ............................................M authausen...............................Wallsee .....................................Grein ..........................................Y bbs............................................M arbach.....................................Pechlarn ...................................W eitenegg.................................M eik ............................................Schonbuhel.................................Aggsbach-Dorf ........................S p itz ............................................Arnsdrof ...................................W eissenkirchen........................Dürnstein .................................S te in ............................................Krems ........................................K orneuburg...............................Nussdorf ...................................Vienna— North landing-placeVienna — Prater quai ...........H a inburg ...................................D ev in ..........................................Bratislava .................................Kertveljes...................................B e s ..............................................Koloznema ...............................Gonyii ........................................Gy o r ............................................K om arno ...................................Kom arom -U jvaros..................Dunaradvany (Dunajske

Radvan) ...............................Piszke..........................................E sztergom .................................Park an ( P a r k a n y ) ..................S zo b ............................................Nagymaros ...............................V acz ............................................Ujpest ........................................Budapest B atthyany terB u d ap es t ...................................Budapest Donauuferbahnh .B udafok .....................................E rcs i............................................Adony ........................................Dunavecse.................................Dunapentele...............................Dunafoldvar...............................H a r t a ..........................................O rd a s ..........................................P a k s ............................................U szod..........................................Kalocsa ......................................Fadd-T olna ...............................

Agencies and stations.

T ype Country Remarks

Agency Bavaria» »» »» »» Upper Austria» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» »» Lower Austria» Upper Austria» Lower Austria>> »» »» »» »

Station »A gency *

» »» »» »

Station »A gency »Station »Agency »

» »Main agency »

»»

Czechoslovakia» » N ot open at present» » »» » »» »» Hungary» »» Czechoslovakia

Station Hungary

Agency Czechoslovakia N ot open at presentAgency Hungary

» »» Czechoslovakia» Hungary» »» »» »» »

Main Agency »Agency »

» »» »» »» »» »» »

Station »Agency *

»» »» »» »

— 9 2 —

Place T ype C ountry R em arks

Ersekcsanad ...................................... Agency HungaryB aja ............................................................ » »D u n a sze k c so .......................................... » »M o h a cs ..................................................... » »B e z d a n ..................................................... » Kingdom of the

Serbs, Croates and Slovenes A patin ........................................................ » »Bogojevo (C o m b o s ) ........................... » » N ot open at presentV u k o v a r ................................................... » »I lo k ............................................................ » »Palanka ................................................... » »Novi S a d ................................................ » »Zemun........................................................ » »Belgrade (Danube) ................. Main agency »P a n c e v o ................................................ Agency »S m ed erevo .............................................. »Veliko-Gradiste..................................... » »Moldova-veche....................................... » RoumaniaD r e n c o v a ................................................ » » N ot open at present.Orsova ..................................................... » »Turnu Severin 1 ..................................... » »Calafat1 ................................................ Station »Vidin 2 .................................................... Agency »Akcar P a lan k a 2 ............................... Station BulgariaL o m 2 .................................................... Agency »Cibar2 .................................................. Station »Kozloduj 2 .............................................. » »Orechovo 2 ........................................... Agency »V a d in 2 .................................................. Station »Beslij 2 ........................................................ » »Corabia1 ................................................ » RoumaniaS o m o v it2 ............................................. Agency BulgariaNikopoli 2 ................................................ » »Turn M agurele2 ............................... Station RoumaniaSwischtow 2 ........................................ Agency BulgariaB u stc h u k 2 .............................................. » »G iurgiu1 ................................................ » RoumaniaB ra ila 1 ..................................................... » »G alatz1 ................................................... » »

Port facilities.

Place Landing place Pontoons Landing-place equipmentL ength Aream eters sq. m.

Ratisbon ..................... 1,075 35,000 None Warehouse No. 1, capacity 10,000 tons.(of which » » 2, » 3,000 »5,580 with » » 5, » 300 »buildings) » » 6 , » 800 »

Electric Loading Equipm ent.V. A. No. 15 Travelling ship elevator, 36 tons

capacity per hour for heavy goods.

» » 17 1 Sack elevator ; capacity 400» » 18 J sacks per hour for heavy goods.» » 17 Revolving crane 1 %-3 tons

capacity.» » 35 i» » 36 Revolving cranes travelling on» » 47 > overhead rails : capacity 1 M>-3» » 49 tons» » 50 /» » 10 Fixed revolving crane, l<S-ton

capacity.

1 R oum anian sta tion , form erly p roperty of D.D.S.G., expropria ted by R oum anian G overnm ent a fte r th e war.1 B ulgarian sta tions — Customs stores.

— 9 3 —

Place

Ratisbon (continued)

Deggendorf Passau. . . .

Engelhartszell Obernzell Niederranna . Wesenufer . . . Obermühl . . .Neuhaus .........Aschach .........Brandstatt . . . Wilhsring . . . Linz .............. .

Mauthausen.................Wall see ......................Grein ..........................Y bbs.............................M arbach......................Pôchlarn .....................W eitenegg ..................M e lk ............................Schonbühel..................Aggsbach Df................S p itz ..............................Arnsdorf. ..................Weisenkirchen .........D ilrnstein....................Stein and Krems . . .K orneuburg................

Nusdorf

Landing place Length Aream eters sq. m.

Pontoons

200 19,100520 18,800

(of which 2,800 with buildings)

NoneNone

290 1,400 None150 500 1130 1 , 2 0 0 11 1 0 1 , 0 0 0 1160 700 11 0 0 480 1270 680 None

80 480 180 400 1

680 24,000 5

Landing-place equipment

V. A. No. 12 Fixed revolving crane, 15-ton capacity.

» » 45 Wagon "and barge capstan with1.200 traction power.

» » 72 Travelling warehouse winch,1,000 kg. capacity.

1 warehouse, capacity 187 tons.Warehouse No. 1, capacity 250 tons.

» » 2, »> ' 10,000 »» » 3, » 1,600 »» » 4, » 600 »

V. A. No. 12 Fixed revolving crane, 5-ton capacity.

» » 21, 23, 24. Sack elevators, capacity400 sacks per hour.

» » 25 Grain-loading plant, capacity40 tons per hour, including wagon-shunting plant, 750 kg. tractive force.

» » 29 Grain elevator, 80-ton capacityper hour, including wagon-shunt­ing p lan t of 750 kg. tractive force.

» » 53 Barge and wagon capstan of1.200 kg. tractive force.

» » 73 Travelling rope winch.

S. V. A. No. 11 Revolving steam crane, 4-ton capacity.

1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,1 warehouse,Warehouse N

» »» »

V. A. No. 33

» » 37» » 54

capacity 124 tons, capacity 36 tons, capacity 60 tons, capacity 37 tons, capacity 435 tons, capacity 82 tons, capacity 31 tons, capacity 167 tons, capacity 6 6 tons, o. 1, capacity 5,200 tons.

2, » “ 4,800 »3, >> 800 »

Travelling revolving crane con­nected with sack-transporting plant 1.5 tons capacity.Sliding platform.Chain elevator, capacity, 400 sacks per hour.

485 468 1 1 warehouse, capacity 204 tons.500 1,600 1 1 warehouse, capacity 41 tons.402 2 0 0 1 1 warehouse, capacity 238 tons.

1 , 1 0 0 250 2 1 warehouse, capacity 133 tons.130 60 1900 960 1 1 warehouse, capacity 932 tons.350 1 0 0 1 1 warehouse, capacity 383 tons.

80 600 2 2 warehouses, capacity 156 tons.80 1 0 0 180 150 1 1 warehouse, capacity 43 tons.

1,250 600 1 1 warehouse, capacity 595 tons.80 150 1 1 warehouse, capacity 44 tons.80 150 1 1 warehouse, capacity 73 tons.80 1 0 0 1 None.

620 1 , 2 0 0 2 1 warehouse, capacity 178 tons.730 300 1 2 warehouses, capacity 1,304 tons.

V. A. No. 14, Fixed crane with hock, capa­city 10 and 5 tons.

216 1,600 1 1 warehouse, capacity 605 tons.

Place L a n d i n g p l a c e L e n g t h A r e am e t e r s s q . m .

Pontoons Landing-place equipm ent

Vienna — North landing place .

Vienna-Praterquai Warehouse . . . .

Nainburg Devin . . . Bratislava

Kertvelyes .B e s ................G ô n y i .........

Kolosznoma

535 42,850 (of which 10,720 with building)

None

1,140 68,700 (of which45,000 with buildings.)

300 1,600 1

15 165 1

340 13,600 (of which

1,900 with buildings.)

6

150 750 None.203 9,400 None160 2 , 0 0 0 2

60 2,300 None

2 warehouses, capacity 1,700 tons.S. V. A. No. 1, Electric floating belt con­

veyor, maximum capacity 80 tons per hour.

» » 26, Travelling coal-loadingbridge40 kg. capacity 60,000 kg. per hour.

» » 46, Electric capstan, 12,000 kg.tractive force.

» » 58,59 ,Electriccoal-loadingbridges,including belt conveyors of 500 kg. capacity, 80 tons per hour.

» » 6 0 , Electric wagon-tipping device,capacity 35,000 kg., 140,000 kg. per hour.

» » 61, Belt conveyor with 140,000kg. capacity per hour.

» » 62-63, Sliding platform of 5,000capacity.

» » 64-66, Shunting capstan, 1,200 kg.tractive power.

5 coal-yards with space for11,500 tons.

13 warehouses, 45,900 tons capacity.V. A. No. 1, Electric fixed revolving crane,

2 0 tons capacity.» » 2, Electric travelling revolving

crane, 3.5 tons capacity.» » 3-5, Electric travelling revolving

crane, 2.5 tons capacity.» » 6-9, Electric sack elevator, 400

sacks per hour.» » 11, 31, 32, 39-44 wagon capstans of

750-2,000 kg. tractive force.» » 47, 70, 71 travelling rope winches

500-1,000 kg. tractive forcé.» » 16, 19, 38 sliding platform.» » 22, travelling ship elevator, 50 tons

capacity per hour.» » 30, travelling ship elevator, 80 tons

capacity per hour.» » 27, 28. Loading bridge, 1 ton

capacity.» » 34, Loading bridge 1.5 ton capacity.» » 55 and 56. Loading bridge 1.5 and

3-ton capacity.S. V. A. No. 12, Revolving steam crane, 4-ton

capacity.1 warehouse, capacity 272 tons.

None.3 warehouses, capacity 3,213 tons.V. A. No. 51, Electric loading bridge with

travelling crane above 3-5 ton capacity.

1 warehouse, capacity 1 2 0 tons.1 warehouse, capacity 17 tons.1 warehouse, capacity 165 tons.V. A. No. 10 steam elevator for grain and

coal, 30 tons per hour.1 warehouse, capacity 1 2 2 tons.

Place Landing placeLengthm eters

Area sq. m.

Pontoons Landing-place equipm ent

Gy or 150 15,000 Warehouse No. » »» »» »

Shed »V. A. No. 52.

Komarom-Ujvares . .K om arn o ......................Dunajsks R a d v a n y . .Piszke.............................E sztergom ...................Parkany........................S z o b .............................Nagymaros .................V a c z ...............................Ujpest ..........................Budapest

Batthyanyter . . . . Budapest

Main agency and BudapestDonauufer Station.

70110120

6875

206040

323958

1,4001,0001,0002,0003,000

6002,700

856

4,65028,400

1NoneNone

1None

1111

13

7 capacity 200 tons.11 » 200 »12 » 200 *17 » 200 »13 » 60 »

Fixed loading bridge with un ­derneath traveller, capacity : bulk goods, 300 q. ; general goods, 2 0 0 q.p.h.

1 warehouse, capacity 296 tons.None.None.

1 warehouse, capacity 306 tons.2 warehouses, capacity 950 tons.

None.None.

2 warehouses, capacity 267 tons.None.

2 warehouses, capacity 1,224 tons.15 warehouses, capacity 9,171 tons.S.V.A. No. 2. Revolving steam crane,

1 -ton capacity. » » 4. » 1 »» » 5. » 1 »» » 6 . » 1 »» » 7. » 2 »» » 8 . Revolving electric crane,

2 -ton capacity. » » 13. Revolving steam crane,

4-ton capacity. ( 1 1 fixed revolving hand cranes belonging

Budafok................... 1 0 0 400 1 None.E resi.......................... 30 500 1 None.Adony ..................... 1 1 0 16,500 1 1 warehouse, capacitv 1 1 2 tons.Da. Vecse .............. 2 0 0 1 2 , 0 0 0 1 1 warehouse, capacity 81 tons.Da. P e n t e l e ............ 150 600 1 1 warehouse, capacity 150 tons.Da. Fôldvar .......... 180 7,200 1 1 warehouse, capacity 59 tons.H a r ta ........................ 53 1,500 1 1 warehouse, capacity 280 tons.O rdas........................ 114 4,000 1 1 warehouse, capacity 1 1 0 tons.P a k s .......................... 140 2,800 1 2 warehouses, capacity 501 tons.U sz o d ........................ 48 1,400 1 1 warehouse, capacitv 79 tons.Kalocsa ................... 150 700 1 1 warehouse, capacity 149 tons.Fadd T o l n a ............ 95 5,700 1 2 warehouses, capacity 408 tons.Baja............................ 150 4,500 1 2 warehouses, capacity 475 tons.Pa. S zek ca b ............ 33 330 1 None.M ohacs..................... 350 30,000 1 warehouse, capacity 550 tons.Ersekcsanad ......... — 1 None.B e zd a n ..................... 80 4,000 1 1 warehouse, capacity 292 tons.Apatin........................ 80 5,000 None None.Begojevo ................. 180 4,000 None. 1 warehouse, capacity 190 tons.V ukovar................... 2 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 None 1 warehouse, capacity 340 tons.I lok ............................ 70 1 , 0 0 0 None 1 warehouse, capacity 275 tons.P a la n k a ................... 150 2,500 None 1 warehouse, capacity 510 tons.Novisad ................. 150 6 , 0 0 0 1 2 warehouses, capacity 1,468 tons.Z em u n ..................... 500 1 0 , 0 0 0 1 4 warehouses, capacity 2,380 tons.Belgrade-Danube. . — — 2 S.V.A. No. 3. Revolving steam crane, 4 tons

capacity.Pancevo ................... 300 3,000 None 1 warehouse, capacity 440 tons.Sm ederevo.............. 70 2 , 0 0 0 None None.Mol do va-veche 1 . . 90 1,500 None 1 warehouse, capacity 299 tons.Vel. G r a d is te ......... None None.

1 R oum anian sta tions , form erly p roperty of D .D .S.G ., expropriated after the war by th e R oum anian Governm ent.

— 96 —

Place Landing place Pontoons

Orsova 1 .....................

Lengthm eters

400

Area sq. m.

6,800 1D ren k o v a 1 .............. n o 1,300 NoneTurnu Severin 1 162 300 NoneC alafat1 ..................... 26 800 NoneVidin 2 ........................ 60 — 1Akcar Palanka 2 . . . — — NoneLom 2 .......................... 60 — 1Cibar 2 ........................ — — NoneKosleduj 2 ................. — — NoneO rechovo2 ................. — — 1Vadin 2 ........................ — — NoneB e s l i i 2 ........................ •— — 1Corabia 1 ................... 75 2 0 0 NoneS o m o v it 2 ................... 60 — 1T. Magurele 1 ............ 56 2 0 0 NoneN ik op o li2 ................... 1 0 0 300 1Sistov 2 ........................ 80 — 1Rustchuk 2 ................. 84 — 1Giurgiu 1 ................... 65 1,500 NoneBraila 1 ........................ 45 780 None

Galatz 1 ..................... 145 5,800 None

Landing-place equipm ent

1 warehouse, capacity 1,739 tons.1 warehouse, capacity 170 tons.1 warehouse, capacity 500 tons.1 warehouse, capacity 135 tons.

None.None.None.None.None.None.None.None.

1 warehouse, capacity 2 0 0 tons.None.

1 warehouse, capacity 2 0 0 tons.None.None.None.

1 warehouse, capacity 500 tons.S.V.A. No. 9. Elevator for grain (steam),

180 tons per hour.3 warehouses, capacity 2,383 tons.

RH EIN-DON AU -EX PRESS-SCH IFFAHRTS-A. G. (ERD EX ).

S t o c k .................................................................................... 100,000,000 Austrian kr.Owned b y D. D. S. G................................................... 50 per cent.Owmed b y M. F. T. R .................................................. 50 per cent.Subsidy : None.

Fleet.

Type Y ear No. Tonnage

Self-propelled barges ................................... 1924 4 480N ot organised before wrar.Present condition : Good. In use : 100 per cent.

Horse-power

1,060

City

Vienna Danube Lorn Dalanka Rustchuk

Agencies.

K ind of Organisation

H. Q. and agency Agency with own personnel

P ort

Vienna Danube Canal

Port facilities.

W arehouses

2 warehouses with 371 m . 2 floor space.

SUDDEUTSCHE DONAUDAM PFSCHIFFAHRT GESELLSCHAFT. (S. D.)

C a p i ta l ................................................................................ 1,400,000 marks, divided into 7,000 sharesStock owrned by D.D.S.G........................................... 60 per cent.Stock owned by jVl.F.T.R.......................................... 40 per centSubsidy : None.

1 R oum anian s ta tio n s , formerly property of D.D.S.G., exp rop ria ted after th e war by the R oum anian Government.2 Bulgarian sta tions : Customs warehouses.

— 9 7 —

Fleet.

Type Y ear No. Tonnage H ors e-power

T u g s ..................................... 1913 12 6,8001924 3 1,530

Difference — 9 5,270

Barges ................................. 1913 115 76,7511924 7 3,296

Difference — 108 — 73,455

Self-propelled barges . . . 1913 3 1,950 7201924 5 3,250 1,200

Difference + 2 + 1,300 + 480

Tank b a rg es ...................... 1913 — —1924 5 3,802

Difference + 5 ■+ 3,802

Total .......................... 1913 130 78,701 7,5201924 20 10,348 2,730

Difference — 110 — 68,353 — 4,790

Present condition : Good. In use : 100 per cent.

Company is German. Boats are under German flag. Before the war stock was bought b y Austrian Government. After passing through other hands present ownership is as indicated above.

Port facilities.

Station W arehouses Loading equipm entNo. Surface

in sq. m.R em arks K ind Capacity

Tons

Ratisbon .............. No private warehouses or loading equipment.Deggendorf............ 1 530 Ground level — —

Passau..................... 1 417 One storey — .—

Linz ........................ 1 2,916 One storey 1 electric revolving crane 3Vienna-Kaiserplatz 1 3,500 One storey 3 electric semi-portal revolving cranes 3 .5 each

1 4,800 Three storeys 2 electric warehouse internal cranes 1 electric crane 1 electric capstan 1 electric sliding platform 1 car scales 1 wagon scales

1 .5 each 3 »

30

Vienna-Zwisshun -bruckon ............ 4 5,219 Ground level 3 electric cantilever cranes

1 electric fixed revolving crane1 hand crane2 electric capstans1 electric sliding platform 1 electric sliding platform 1 wagon-weigher 1 cart-weigher

3 each51

5040

Vienna DanubeQuay Station . 2 1,160 Ground level 1 electric portal revolving crane 2 .3

Vienna town . . . . 1 1 , 0 0 0 Ground level 1 electric revolving crane 1 .5Budapest-Rudolf-

rakpart ............ 6 2,346 Ground level 1 electric revolving crane 3 steam floating cranes

5

Budapest-O’Buda 1 364 Ground level

7

— 9 8 —

C O N T I N E N T A L E M O T O R S C H I F F A H R T S A .-G . A M S T E R D A M .

Stock owned privately.Subsidy : None.

Fleet.

Type Y ear No Tonnage Horse-power

1. T u g s ...................................................................... 1924 1 — 7002 . Barges .................................................................. 1924 5 3,220 —

3 . Self-propelled b a r g e s ...................................... 1924 4 2,164 1 , 0 0 04. Self-propelled tank barges ........................ 1924 4 2,240 1 , 2 0 0

T o ta l .................................................................. 14 7,624 2,900

Company not organised before the war. Present condition : good. In use : 1 0 0 per cent.

Agencies.

City K ind of Organisation

Passau A. Glas & Co.Vienna Josef PopperBratislava Jan HobasekBudapest Albert GrossNovisad Fenyô & BrotherBelgrade “ Bohemia ”Orsova “ Danubia ”Vidin “ Iskra ”Lom Eliezer Benaroya & Co.Sistov Mingrelli Filipoff & Co.Somovit Papazoff and PanajotoffRustchuk Eliezer Benaroya & Co.Giurgiu “ Unitas ”Braila “ Unitas ”Galatz “ Unitas ”

Port facilities.

P o rt Q uay W arehouses Equipm ent

V i e n n a ..................................................................... 1 1 CraneDanube Canal ........................

C Z E C H O S L O V A K D A N U B E N A V I G A T I O N C O M P A N Y .

Stock ownedby G o v e r n m e n t ........................72 per cent.by Bankconsortium . . . . 28 per cent.

Subsidy 1,100,000 Cr. Cr. 1922 and 1923 to cover deficit of 1,500,000 Cr. Cr. in passenger and package freight business in those years.

Fleet.

Type

Passenger s t e a m e r s ........................................... 1924T u g s ...........................................................................B a r g e s ......................................................................Self-propelled barges .................................

Tank barges ........................................................

T o t a l .............................................................

Year No.

1924 21924 91924 1 2 01924 8

1924

139

Tonnage

78,7443,800

116,744

Horse-power

7385,987

3,120

9,845

Remarks

4 steam 4 motor

Company not organised before war. Present condition : good. In use : 100 per cent.

— 9 9 —

Agencies.

City K ind of organisation

Ratisbon ................................................................................................. AgencyP a s s a u .......................................................................................................................... »Linz ............................................................................................................................. »V i e n n a ........................................................................................................................ »Bratislava .................................................................................. H. Q. and local officeKom arno..................................................................................... AgencyK am en ice ................................................................................................................ »B u d a p e s t ..................................................................................................... »B e z d a n ........................................................................................................................ »V ukovar....................................................................................... Warehouse and officeNovi s a d ....................................................................................... AgencyO s e k ............................................................................................................................. »B e lg ra d e ...................................................................................................................... »O r s o v a ........................................................................................................................ »Turnu-Severin 2 Vidin 1 Lom 1 Sofia 1 S istova 1 Giurgiu 2 R u s tc h u k 1 Bucharest2 Braila 2 Galatz 2

Port facilities.

Port

Ratisbon..

Deggendorf. Passau . . . .

Quay

300 m.

One barge length. 1 2 0 m.

Warehouses

400 tons.

S. D. G. warehouse.

Equipm ent

2 portal cranes.1 portal crane under

construction.

Linz.

Ybbs ..

Vienna

Bratislava.

190 m., together with S. H. S. Syndicate and M. F. T. R.

Three barge lengths.

Of the 2,284 m. of quay on the river side, about 400 m. is leased to D. D.S. G. The remain­der is under State Administration and at the disposal of all flags.

S. D. G. warehouse, 2 0 0 tons.

Warehouse V III , 998 sq. m. upper sur­face,

1,174 sq. m. ground surface, - v

2,172 sq. m. storage space. About 600 tons

by arrangement with S.D.G.

Four warehouses (11,761 sq. m. ca­pacity 23,562 tons). May also be used by other compa­nies.

1 travelling portal crane.

1 crane under con­struction.

Portal crane.

Two electric eleva­tors of 2.5 tons ca­pacity.

1 electric elevator of5 tons capacity.

1 sack elevator.1 bucket elevator.1 sack slide.

Remarks

Municipal warehou ses leased.

Warehouse leased S. D. G.

Leased.

Coal barge.

Three pontoons.

1 Represented by “ B alkan T ransport Co., L td . ” , Sofia, also for Vidin, Somovit and Sistov. 1 Represented by “ In terna tionala ” , Bucharest.

100 —

P o rt Quay

Komarno .. 170 m. (2,350 sq .m .),of which 85 m.

(1,500 sq. m.), free port, 85 m. (850 sq. m.) coal export store.

Budapest

Novisad .

Orsova . .

Lom . . . .

Rustchuk

Giurgiu . .

Galatz . . .

126 m.60 m. projected.

Vukovar . . 11,000 sq. m.

W arehouses

Warehouse IV, 2,700 sq. m. storage

space.

Ujpest own ware­house 35 x 8,280 sq. m.

D. U. B. warehouse.

1 warehouse of 2 sto­reys and 2 of 1 storey.

3 x 550 sq. m.1,650 sq. m.

629 2,279 sq. m.

Capacity 1,600 quin­tals and also space for 4,000 tons.

Storage space by ar­rangement with agents “ Interna­t i o n a l ”.

Storage space by ar­rangement with agents “ Interna­t i o n a l ” .

E quipm ent

Floating crane, 10 tons capacity.

R em arks

Railway connection.

2 pontoons.

1 coal barge.

Leased coal barge.

Pontoon.

Barge No. 4001 as warehouse and coal barge.

Barge No. 4201 as warehou e and coal barge.

Pontoon No 6 , 20 m. bridge.

Pontoon No. 4, 20 m. bridge.

ROYAL H U N G A RIA N R IV E R AND SEA NAVIGATION COMPANY.

(M. F. T. R.)

Stock ow'ned : B y Government, 20 per cent.B y Danube Navigation Company, London, 13 per cent.Privately, 27 per cent.

Subsidy : Amounts in depreciated currency to about $30 a year.

T ype

Passenger steam er1

Tugs

Fleet.

Year No. Tonnage H ors e-Power

1913 15 5,8601924 48 11,292Difference + 33 + 5,432

1913 33 13,0401924 30 14,010Difference — 3 + 970

1 Includes 30 ie rry boats of a to ta l of 3,532 hors e-power.

— 101 —

Type Year No. Tonnage H orse-power

Barges ............................... 19131924

275195

149,177.70108,629.10

Difference — 80 — 40,548.60

Self-propelled barges . . . 1913 1924 2 320Difference + 2 + 320

Tank barges ................... . 1913 1924 5 3,791.60Difference + 5 + 3,791.60

Total................................... 19131924

323275

149.177.70112.420.70

18,90025,622

Difference — 48 — 36,757.00 + 6,722

Present condition : good. In use : 80 per cent.In addition to changes noted above, this company made substantial increases in its fleet during

the war which were lost under the provisions of the treaties of peace.

In 1925 the Company M. F. T. R. has Representatives, Agencies and other Stationsin the following places :

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

Numbers Seat of Representatives

1 G e r m a n y ............................................................. München2 A u s t r ia ................................................................. Vienna3 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes . Zemun4 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes . Belgrade5 R oum ania ............................................................ Bucharest6 B u l g a r i a ............................................................ Sofia

Staff No. of employees

511

3133

T o t a l 26

S p h e r e o f a u t h o r i t y o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

München : The whole territory of Bavaria.

Vienna : The whole territory of Austria.

Zemun : All stations in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, except the Agency of Belgrade,as also in respect of the commercial administration of the free traffic betweenstations in the Danube lying above the Save, Drave and Zemun.

Belgrade : The Tisza stations of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, to the traffic ofthe Serb-Croat-Slovene stations below Belgrade and to the Belgrade Agency.

Bucharest : The whole territory of Roumania.

Sofia : The whole territory of Bulgaria.

— 1 0 2 -

M. F. T. R. Agencies.

Nos. R iver Country N am e of Agency

1 . Danube Germany Ratisbon2 . » » Deggendorf3 . » » Passau4 . Austria Linz5 . » » Vienna-Reichsbrucke6 . » » Vienna-Handelskai7. » » Hamburg8 . » Czechoslovakia Bratislava9 . » » Komarno I. b.

1 0 . » Hungary Gyor1 1 . » » Gonyu1 2 . » » Komarno r. b.13. » » Nyergesujfalu14. » » Esztergom15. » » Szob16. » » Domos17. » » Nagymaros18. » » Visegrad19. » » Vacz2 0 . » » D unâbogdany2 1 . » » Tahitotfalu2 2 . » >> Szentendre23. » » Ujpest24. » » Budapest left side25. » » » right side26.27.28. 29.

»»»»

» » E ctvos Square » Danube Goods

Budafok Ercsi

30. » » Adony31. » » Dunapentele32. » » Dunavecse33. » » Dunafoldvar34. » » Paks35. » » Kalocsa-Fokto36. » » Fadd-Tolna37. » » Baja38. » » Dunaszekcso39. » » Mohacs40. » Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Batina-Bezdan41. » » Vukovar42. » » Novisad43. » » Zemun44. » » Belgrade45. » » Semendria46. » Roumania Orsova47. » » Turnseverin48. » » Calafat49. » » Corabia50. » » Giurgiu51. » » Braila52 . » » Galatz53. » Bulgaria Vidin54. » » Lom55. » » Rahova56. » » Somovit57 . » » Sistov58. » » Rustchuk59. Tisza Hungary Szolnok60. » » Csongrad61. » » Szeged62. » Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Titel63. Bega Roumania Temesvar

— 103 —

Nos.

1.2 .3.4.5.6 .7.8 . 9.

1 0 .11.12 .13.14.15.16.17.18.19.2 0 . 21 . 2 2 .23.24.

M. F. T. R. Other Stations.

River

Danube»»

»

»»»»»»»

»»

»

Tisza

C o u n t r y

CzechoslovakiaHungary

Bulgaria

Hungary»»

»»

N a m e o f S t a t i o n

DevinVenekGizellatelepZebegenyKisorosziTahiLeanyfaluPocsmegyerRomaifurdoCibarKozlodujVadinBeslijNikopolTiszavarkonyVezsenyNagyrev-UkecskeTiszakurt-TiszainckaTiszaugSzentesCsanytelekMindszentSovenyh aca-A ny a sAlgyo

Local and ferry services : Budapest.15 stations Budapest

1 station Ujpest.

Total 16 stations.

M. F. T. R. Port Facilities,

Stations on th e D anubePontoons,

Area o t Site of S ta tion W arehouse Open ground

in sq. m.

Coal Cranes and

N um berL ength in m eters Square

m eters Own H ired Area of storage-room in sq. m.

depot in sq. m. th e ir capac ity

Ratisbon-Donaulânde . . . . 1 barge-length 444 1 266

Ratisbon-Luitpoldhafen . . 2 barge-lcnglhs 1,270 1 1 , 0 2 0

•250

Deggendorf1 ............ — 140 meters 240 _ — — _ —Passau-

Donaulânde2. . . . — 2 barge-Iengths 2,174 1 — 504 — 1,310 1 floating steam

Passau-Racklauhafen . . . 3 barge-lengtlis 4,263

1

1

360

Store :Gr. floor . 1,800 1,779

(No. 1) crane with 3.5 tons capacity

Electric.-driven

Linz .......................... 1 64 .5 3,395 1

1 st floor . 1,800 2 nd floor . 1,800

5,400Store :

Gr. floor . 1,620 540 920

aut. elevator with 2 cranes of 1 ton cap. each, fitted on either side.

1 electric-driven

Pôchlarn .................

65

129.5

40 500 1

1st floor . 1,741.5 2nd floor . 1,741.5 Cellar___ 1,741.5

6,844.52 1 1

aut. crane with 2 tons capacity

Stein-Krems .......... — 1 barge-length 1,225 1 — 171 — — —Korneuburg ............ — 1 barge-length — — 1 72 304 — —Wien-Nordbahn-

lândeandKommunalbad8 . V 160 3,000 — — — — — —

Vienna-Reichs-B rücke4 .............. i 75 4,631 1 — 2 0 0 — — __

Vienna-Handcls-Kai . . . 608 .6 45,940.3 1 — 1,064 — — 1 electrically dri­

V i e n n a - S t a c l l a u e rlïrid^c- . ......

111

1

1,312810

Store :Gr. floor . 1,092 1st floor . 1,092

2,184Store :

Gr. floor . 2 ,794.5 1st floor . 2 ,8 7 8 .- 2nd floor. 2 ,878 .— 3 r d f l o o r . 2 ,8 7 8 .-

1 1 ,4 2 k . 5 1T o t a l 1 6 ,7 9 8 . 5 J _ 1

ven aut. crane and 1 electri­cally driven aut. crane. The first with 2 tons capacity, the other one with 2 . 6 tons capa­city.

/ K c r n t e l e p .............1

1 0 0 11,970 1 \ _ \H a m b u r g ................... 1 barge-length 44 — — _B r a t is la v a ................ 2 Common landing-place

l'or pass, steamers 170 m. long, 2 barge- lengths on Danube, 4 barge - lengths in winter harbour.

1 436 _

Gonyii ...................... 1 240 6,361 _G ÿ o r .......................... 1 1 barge-length — 1 277Komarom, right side 1 300 meters 4,800 —Komarom, left side 1 45 1 , 1 1 2 1 2 1 2Nyergesujfalu . . . . 1 2 barge-lengths ___ .— 1 45Pàrkàny ................. — 1 2 0 --- —Esztergom ............ 1 2 0 0 --- 1 ___ 198Szob ........................ 1 1 barge-length --- — —Zebegèny ............... 1 1 barge-length --- — __ _D ô m o s ............................... 1 1 barge-length ----- 1 ___ 3 5 .3 4Gizailatelep-fürdô. 1 1 barge-length ----- — ___

N agym aros ..............

» àtkelés . . .11

1 barge-length ------- 1 — 49 .4 0 — —

Visegràd ........................

» àtkelés . . .11

1 barge-length ------- 1 — 30 — —

V â c z ..................................... 1 1 2 0 ----- 1 ___ 230Kisoroszi ..................... 1 1 barge-length ---- — —

D unabogdàny . . . 1 1 barge-length ----- — — _T a h i ........................... 1 1 barge-length ----- — —

Tahitôtfalu .......... 1 1 barge-length ----- — —

L e à n y f a lu ..................... 1 1 barge-length ----- — —

Pocsmagyer .............. 1 1 barge-length ----- — —Szentendre ............ 1 1 barge-length ----- — —

R ô m a i-f i ir d o .............. 1 1 barge-length ----- — — _Ujpest .............................. 1 1 barge-length 1,240 1 — 2 0 0 _Budapest,; left side 1 625! 7 9,124.9 5 2,880 5,584.9 660

opendepot.

Budapest, right side Budapest, Eôtvôs

1 227 1,358 1 — 372 986 —

Square .................Budapest-Danube

3 259 .4 2,853.4 21

415 .4984

— —

goods station . . .

Budapest-Danube coal station . . . . 2

2 barge-lengths

2 barge-lengths 1,280

1 504

2 electr. aut. cranes with 2 . 6 tons capa­city each

Floating steam crane No. 11, 1 . 8 tons capa­city.

1 Additional storage room in excess of 240 sq. m. available if required.2 One-third of warehouse No. 1 placed at disposal of S. H. S. River Syndicate.3 Designated by Authorities as definitive site for landing-stage for passenger steamers4 Provisional Site.

M . F. T. R. Port Facilities (continued).

Stations on the DanubePontoons,

N um ber

Area of Site of S tation

L ength in meters Squarem eters

2 0 5 0 0

8 0 4 8 05 2 . 6 5 7 8 . 6

8 7 9 5 74 8 . 7 —7 2 . 5 ■—2 7 . 3 1 3 1

6 5 1 , 3 0 0

6 6 . 5 2 , 3 2 7 . 5

2 06 8 . 5 6 8 56 0 9 4

2 7 1 6 2

7 0 4 1 0

3 2 . 3 8 0 7 . 51 b a r g e - l e n g t h 1 , 2 0 0

6 0 —1 b a r g e - l e n g t h —1 b a r g e - l e n g t h —1 b a r g e - l e n g t h —

7 0

4 7 . 5 _1 b a r g e - l e n g t h —

5 3 ■—-

4 7 8 8 8

5 0 5 , 4 5 1 . 65 0 1 ,3 4 95 0

| ---

W arehouse

Own Hired Area of storage-room in sq. m.

Open ground

in sq. m.

Coal depot

in sq. m

Cranes and

the ir capacity

Budapest, local and ferry-boat stations : S./ Left Side :

U j p c s t ..............Hungria-ut . . . Margitsziget-

Budapest side Ujpesti rakp. Arped-utcza . Lanchi-dfo . . . Vigadé Square Eskii Square . Vâmbâz Square Borâros Square

B. /R ight-side :Obuda ............Felsô-Margitsz Csâszârfurdô . Also-Msziget . Margithidio . . Batthyâny-tér Lânchidfo . . .

Transfers : b /R ight bank

Tabân .................Lâgym ânyos . . Coal Place . . . .B u d a f c k ............E r o s i ...................A dony ...............D unapentele . . D unavecse . . . . Dunafôldvâr . .

P a k s ...................Kalocsa-Fokto Fadd-Tolna . .. B a ja .....................

D u n a s z e k e s i i ...........M o h a c s ..........Vukovar Town . . . Vukovàr TransiL . .

11111

DDSG DDSG DDSG 1 pon­toon barge

1 1 1 1

11

SHS »si is i

128

1 6 21 2 61 2 61 8 9

1 2 6

Negotiations for lease of ware­house from StateR ailw ay still pending.

Zemun .................... s u s 1 _ --Belgrarl .................. SHS 1 — —O r s o v a .................... 91 ---Turnu-Severin . . . . SI! 2 — ---C a la f a t .................... — — ---Vidin ...................... 1 1 barge-length ---L om ............................ 1 1 barge-length ---R ahova ................... 1 1 barge-length ---Corâbia ................... — — ---Cibar ........................ 1 1 barge-length ---K ozloduj................... 1 1 barge-length ---Beslij ........................ DGT 1 barge-length ---

(DOG J)S o m o v i t ................... 1 1 barge-length ---S i s t o v ........................ 1 1 barge-length ---Nikopol ................... DGT 1 barge-length ---

(DDSS)1 barge-lengthR u s t c h u k ................. 1 ---

Giurgiu ................... 1 6 0 meters landing place ---B r a i la ........................ — — -Galatz 3...................... S M R 1 — ---Szolnok ................... 1 1 barge-length ---T iszavarkon y.......... 1 1 barge-length ---V e z s e n y ................... 1 1 barge-length ---Nagy r e v ................... 1 1 barge-length ---TiszakurtTiszaincka 1 1 barge-length ---Tiszau g ................... 1 1 barge-length -Csongrad ................. 1 1 7 0 ---Szentec ..................... 1 1 barge-length 8,000C san y te lek ............. 1 1 barge-length —Mindszent .............. 1 1 0 0 —Sovenyhazaanyds . 1 1 barge-length —Algyo ...................... 1 1 barge-length —Szeged ..................... 1 1 0 0

400Zenta.......................... — 7 5Aljmas Dravatorok — 1 9 8 3,936Baros ........................ ■— 9 0 2,272Samac ..................... — 9 0 9,076Boza Temesvar . . .

—1 barge-length

1 Pontoon of Sub-Company used against payment.2 Service hydraulique.3 Service maritime Roum ania.

70

304

217

Gr. f lo o r 1201st floor . . . . 120

— 108 —

H U N G A R IA N IN L A N D N A V IG A T IO N COM PANY (M. B. R .)

Stock and subsidies not reported.All boats are chartered by M. F. T. R.

Type Year

Fleet.

No. Tonnage Horse-power

T u g s ................................. 1913 13 — 4,6951924 3 — 1,680Difference — 10 — — 3,015

B a r g e s ............................ 1913 88 49,703 —

1924 24 20,907 —Difference — 64 — 28,716 —

T o t a l ................... 1913 101 49,703 4,6951924 27 20,907 1,680Difference — 74 — 28,716 — 3,015

Present condition : good. In use : 100 per cent.

S. H. S. S Y N D IC A T EStock owned :

B y Government, 81 per cent.B y Brodarski Syndicate, 19 per cent.

Subsidy : None.Fleet.

Type Year No. Tonnage

Passenger s t e a m e r s ................... 1925 24 —

Tugs.................................................... 1925 59 1 —

B a r g e s ............................................... 1925 520 320,969

Self-propelled barges................... 1925 — —

Tank b a r g e s ................................. 1925 31 24,752

T o t a l ............................ 634 345,721

Present condition : poor. Syndicate formed after war. Figures for First Serbian S. S.

In use :

Co. not furnished.

70 to 75 per cent.

Hors e-power

8,695

26,623

33,318

Agencies.Danube.

BezdanApatinMarij a AljmasBogojevoDaljVukovarllokPalankaCerevibBeocinKamenicaNovi SadSremski KarlovciSlankamen

Danube :ZemunSmederevoKovinDubravicaVel. GradisteGolubacDobraDonji MilanovacTekijaKladovoKorbovoBrza PalankaMihajlovacPrahovo

1 Includes 6 tugs of 2,198 h.p. which are to be broken up.

— 109 —

Danube (continued) : Sava :

Tisza .

Drava :

Radujevac SisakRatisbon Bos. GradiskaPassau Bos BrodLinz Slav. BrodVienna Bos SamacBratislava Slav SamacKomarno ZupanjaBudapest BrckoMohac Bos RacaD urotevo Sr. MitrovicaBraila SabacOrsova Zabrezje

BeogradSrp. KrstwiStar a Kanjiza Biga Canal :Srp. KanjizaSenta Vel. BeckerekAdaMol Temes :Stari BecejN ovi Becej PaucsovoTitel

Osik

Port facilities.

W ithin th e K ingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, th e Syndicate has one or more pontoons and occasional w arehouses in all ports . In R atisbon i t ren ts p a r t of c ity w arehouse; in Passau, p a r t of M. F. T. R . w arehouse ; in V ienna i t leases a place of its own an d re n ts p a r t of S. D. w arehouse ; in B ra tis lava and K om arno 1. b. i t ren ts p a r t of S ta te warehouses ; in Budapest i t re n ts a w arehouse an d q u ay space from th e city for i ts p rivate use.

ROUMANIAN FLUVIAL NAVIGATION.

The Company is owned and operated by the State.

Fled.

TypePassenger steamers . . . .

Tuga .

Barges

Self-propelled barges

Tank barges

Total .

Year No. Tonnage Hors e-power1913 h — 3,2101924 19 — 6,170Difference + 8 — + 2,960

1913 12 — 6,6801924 23 — 11,790Difference + 11 —■ + 5,110

1913 107 67,556 —1924 151 95,405 -—Difference + 44 + 27,849 —1913 1 400 * 1201924 2 700 470Difference + 1 + 300 + 350

1913 13 5,694 —1924 12 5,102 —Difference — 1 — 592 —

1913 144 73,650 10,0101924 207 101,207 18,430Difference + 63 + 27,557 + 8,420

Four tugs under repair.Ten barges under repair.Thirty barges unsuitable for general use due to need of repairs to decks. N ow used for transport

of wood.

110 —

Port facilities.

P o rt Quay W arehouses(m.) (sq. m.)

B a z i a s .......................................... 60 —M o ld o v a - V e c h e ....................... 60 —D re n k o v a ..................................... 60 —O r s o v a - V i l l e ............................ 60 72T. Severin................................. 60 640G r u i a .......................................... 60 —C eta tea ...................................... 60 160C a la fa t ...................................... 60 427B i s t r e t .......................................... 60 —B e c h e t .......................................... 60 -—Corabia ................................. 60 495T. M agu rele................................ 60 240Z i m n ic e a ..................................... 60 140G iu rg iu ........................................ 120 738O l t e n i t a .................................... 120 368T u r tu c a ia ..................................... 60 —S i l i s t r a .......................................... 60 116 (in construction)C a l a r a s i ..................................... 60 273O s t r o v .......................................... 60 —O l t i n a .......................................... 60 141C e r n a v o d a ................................ 60 154H a r s o v a ..................................... 60 175Gura I a l o m i t e i ....................... 60 —B r a i l a ...................................... 120 280M a c i n .......................................... 60 —G a l a t i ...................................... 120 1,000R e n i .......................................... 60 220I s a c c e a .......................................... 60 —T u l c e a .......................................... 60 —I s m a i l ...................................... 60 750Kilia N o u a ............................ 60 300Kilia V e c h e ................................ 60 —Valeo v .......................................... 60 —

ROUM ANIAN SOCIETY OF NAVIGATION ON T H E DANUBE.

Roum anian Stock Company with total capital of 45,000,000 lei, divided into 90,000 shares of 500 lei. All shares are held by private persons.

Type

Passenger steamers Steam and motor tugsB a r g e s ............................Tank barges . . . .

T o t a l ........................

Y e a r

Fleet.

N o . T o n n a g e H o r s e - p o w e r

1924 3 — 1,5801924 16 — 3,3151924 71 81,568 —

1924 13 11,522 —

103 93,090 4,895

No data available on condition or amount in use.

Agencies atSulina

* Tulcea Isaccea

♦V a lcov* Chili a Noua* Ismail ♦R en i ♦G alatz ♦Braila

CernavodaSilistra

*01tonits* GiurgiuZimniceaT. MagureleCorabiaCalafatGruiaT. SeverinBudapestVienna

N. B. — All agencies marked * possess warehouses and handle traffic in goods, parcels and passengers.

— I l l —

Port facilities.

P ort Quay sq. m. Storehouses, sq. m.

Giurgiu 60 144Oltenita 60 144Braila 2 to 60 m. 613Galatz 60 800Reni — 60Tulcea 60 60Ismail 60 272Chi lia Noua — 200

On th a t p a r t of the river suitable for navigation by sea-going vessels, in addition to the Roumanian Sea Navigation Companies, the following foreign lines m aintain a schedule of regular sailings :

1. Cie. Fraissinet, Marseilles2. Lloyd Triestine, Trieste3. Soc. Italiana di Servizi M arittimi, Genoa4. Furness W ithy, Liverpool5. Byron S. S. Co., London6. Deutsche Levante Linie, Hamburg7. Deutsche Orient Linie, S tettin8. Keninklype Nederlandsche Stoomboet M aat Schappi, Am sterdam9. Haleyez Line, Rotterdam .

The first three listed carry passengers regularly and are the only companies having per­m a n e n t loading facilities. Others, including the Roumanian Sea Navigation Companies, use the public accommodations.

SOCIÉTÉ “ FR A ISSIN ET ”

Unloading facilities.

Port Quay W arehouses Rem arks

Galatz 110 m. 700 sq. m.Braila 100 m. 1,261 sq. m. 714 sq. m. of warehouses belong to

the docks ; 547 sq. m. of own warehouses.

SOCIÉTÉ “ LLOYD TR IESTIN O ”

Unloading facilities.

Port Q uay W arehouses Remarks

Galatz 100 m. 900 sq. m. Own warehouseBraila 110 m. 644 sq. m. » »

SOCIÉTÉ “ SITM AR ”

Unloading facilities.

Port Quay Warehouses Rem arks

Galatz 110 m. 540 m. q. Warehouses belong to the docks.Braila 110 m. 547 m. q. » » » »

— 112 —

Annex IV.

SHIPYARDS.

Location. N am e.

Ratisbon ................................. UebigauR uthhofHeeling

D eggendorf.................................... Deggendorfen Herft andEisenbahn G. m. b. H.

Linz ........................................... Schiffswerft Linz A.-G.

Korneuburg .......................... D. D. S. G.

V ien n a......................................... D. D. S. G.

K o m o r n o .................................. Skoda

O B u d a ...................................... D. D. S. G.

Ujpest ...................................... M. F. T. R.Ganz Danubius

Schlick Nicholson R ex Lloyd.

B u d a f o k .................................... M. B. R.

Belgrade (Apatin) .............. S. H. S. Syndicate

Z em un......................................... Karl Gnuss

S m e d e re v o ............................... Vickers

Orsove ...................................... Caro) H sttingen

Turnu Severin ........................ State

G iu r g iu ...................................... State

B r a i la ......................................... RomaniaDanubiu Vulcan Braila Ystrul S. R. D.

Galatz ...................................... Romain de DanubeDocks of Galatz (State)UnireaVulcanAncora

Class of work.

B B B

B

A

B

E

B

A

Remarks.

AA

B

CE

C

B

C

B

B

CCDDDE

BBCDD

Busy — large amount of S.H.S work on reparations account.

Small B. L. shop here also.

Excellent shop. Idle except for con­struction of Diesel motors.

Principally for barges. Machinery repairs.

Old M.F.T.R. works. Used for Czech. S. Co.’s work and Czech. Govt. work.

Floating dry dock. Best equipped on river.

Good-sized plant, well equipped. Excellent large plant — practically

idle.Fairly well equipped — little work.

No ways — otherwise fairly well equipped — busy.

Fairly busy only.

Not very busy — good plant.

New plant being enlarged. For Service Hydraulique.

50 workmen 59 18 30 20

100

For ordinary small repairs.

Good foundry and machine-shop. Some small floating dry docks.

A. Capable of building hulls and engines.B. Capable of building hulls and installing engines — heavy repairs, including hauling.C. Capable of effecting ord inary repairs to hull and m achinery — No ways.D. Small shore p lant — No ways.E . F loa ting workshop.

PART 3.

A n n e x V. T H E W ATERW AY.

A n n e x VI. CUSTOMS, POLICE, ETC., DUES. A n n e x V II. DELAYS AT FRONTIERS.

A n n e x V III. DELAYS IN OPERATING VESSELS.

A n n e x IX. QUESTIONS CONSIDERED BY TH E C. A n n e x X. SUMMARY OF REPORT.

I. D.

PART 3.

T A B L E O F CONTENTS.

A n n ex V .

T H E W A TERW A YPage

General D escription ............................................................................................................................................... 117

Detailed D escription :

Section I. Ulrn - Kehlheim ............................................................................... 118Section II . Kehlheim - Ratisbon ........................................................................................................... 1 1 9

Section I I I . Ratisbon - H ofk irchen ........................................................................................................... 1 1 9

Section IV . Hofkirchen - Passau ........................................................................................................... 120Section V. Passau - Linz.............................................................................................................................. 121Section VI. Linz - D e v i n .............................................................................................................................. 122Section VII. Devin - S z a p .............................................................................................................................. 124Section V III . Szap - Mouth of Tisza........................................................................................................... 125Section IX . Mouth of Tisza - M o ld o v a ................................................................................................. 126Section X . Moldova - Turnu-Severin ........................................................ 128Section X I . Turnu-Severin - Braila ............................................................................................. 132Section X II . Braila - Black Sea :

Braila to Chatal d’I s m a i l ....................................................................................... 134Chatal d ’Ismail to Chatal St. George (Tulcea Arm, St. George Pass) 135Chatal St. George to Sulina (Sulina Pass) .................................................... 135Entrance Channel......................................................................................................... 136

The D r a v e ........................................................................................................................................................ 138The T i s z a ........................................................................................................................................................ 138The Bega ........................................................................................................................................................ 139The Save ........................................................................................................................................................ 139The P r u t h ........................................................................................................................................................ 139

Aid to N avigation.............................................................................................................................................. 139

Germany ........................................................................................................................................................ 140Austria ........................................................................................................................................................ 140C zechoslovak ia ............................................................................................................................................... 140Hungary ........................................................................................................................................................ 140S. H. S. Kingdom ......................................................... " ...................................................................... 140R o u m a n ia ........................................................................................................................................................ 141C. E. D. (European Danube C om m ission)...................................................................................... 141

Additional D ata ............................................................................................................................................... 141

Table 1. W inter Ports .................................................................................................................. 142» 2. B r id g e s ...................................................................................................................................... 143» 3. Floating Plant for Improvement of W a ter w a y ........................ 144-145» 4 . Summary of Physical Characteristics of Waterway by Sections ... 146-147

— 116 —

Table 5 . D epth of Water, R atisbon - Passau6 . » » Passau - Linz7. » » Linz - Vienna8. » » Vienna-Gonyii . ..9 . » » Gônyü - Budapest

10. » » Budapest - Moldova11. » » Moldova - Turnu-Severin12. » » Turnu-Severin - Braila13. » » Braila - Chatal St. George14. » » Sulina A rm .......................15. » » Sulina Entrance..............16. Occurrence of Ice from 1836-192417. Fairway in the Austrian Danube in 192318. » » » » » 192419. Approximate Profile of the Danube20. Port Facilities, Germany21. » » A u s t r ia ..............22. » » Czechoslovakia23. » » Hungary24. » » S. H. S. State25. » » Bulgaria..............26. » » Roumania

148 148148149 149149150

150-151152153154155 155155156157157158158159160

161-162

Annex VI.

CUSTOMS, POLICE, ETC., D U E S ... 163

Annex V II.

D E L A Y S AT FR O N T IE R S ............. ............. 166

Annex VIII.

DELAYS IN O PERATING V E SSE L S.............. 170

Annex IX.

QUESTIONS CONSIDERED B Y T H E C. I. D ................................ 174

Annex X.

SUMMARY OF R EPO RT.. 183

— 117 —

Annex V.

THE WATERWAY.

The following notes on the Danube are based on a short study of documents made available by the League of Nations, the Riparian States, the Danube Commissions, the navigation com­panies and private persons and on personal observations made on trips on the river from the end of April to the middle of Ju ly 1925.

In the tex t and in the tables which appear a t the end of this annex the references to kilo­meters are based on the system adopted by the International Danube Commission, in which all points are located with reference to Sulina. References to miles are based on the system in use by the European Danube Commission for which Sulina is also the origin. Galatz, according to the C. I. D. system, is therefore located by 150 kilometers and, according to the C. E. D. system, 81 miles. Above Braila only the C. I. D. system is in vogue.

The Danube River System, in addition to numerous tributaries navigable for small craft, includes the following, which are available for barges of the same size used on the main river :

The Drave.The Save.The Tisza.The Bega.The Temos (3 or 4 kilometers).The Koros (30 kilometers).The King Peter and Prince Alexander Canals (formerly called Franzen s

^ Canal and Franz Josefs Canal).

The P ru th , although too small to accommodate vessels used on the Danube, is navigable for several hundred kilometers for barges of 300 tons. There are only four or five of 526 tons.

The International Danube River system, as laid down in the Danube Statute, includes the Danube itself from Ulm to the Black Sea, the Morava and the Traya, where in their courses they form the frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Drave from Bares, the Tisza from the mouth of the Samos and the Maros from Arad. The Morava and Traya are not navigable in the true sense of the word, and such navigation as exists on the Maros is very small indeed.

The principal tr ib u ta ry of the Danube, the Save, the Temes and the King Peter and Prince Alexander Canals are not internationalised. Roumania and the S. H. S. Kingdom claim th a t the Bega, which serves one of the most im portant agricultural sections in Europe, is likewise not internationalised. The really navigable portion of the Temes is only th a t part which serves as a means of access to the port of Pancsova. The part of the Maros which is navigable a t present is believed not to be of any particular importance.

Of the streams not adm ittedly internationalised, the Bega lies in two different countries — the S. H. S. Kingdom and Roum ania — and the feeder canal of the King Peter and Prince Alexander Canal system ru rs from Baja in Hungary to Bezdan ii the S. H. S. Kingdom.

For an open river, the physical aspects which affect its navigable capacity are :

1. Depth.2. W idth.3. Current, velocity and direction.4. Character of banks and bottom.5. Stability of channel.6. Radius of curvature of channel.7. Floating and semi-fixed obstructions such as tree trunks, wrecks, etc.8. Formation and movement of ice.9. Winds and storms.

10. Clearances (vertical and horizontal) of bridges, cableways, transmission lines, etc.11. Fogs and mists.

— 118

The Danube, being a long river, necessarily presents a variety of these characteristics Based on them , and for the purposes of th is study, i t has been divided into twelve sections, viz •

I. Ulm - Kehlheim.II. Kehlheim - Ratisbon.

III . Ratisbon - Hofkirchen.IV. Hofkirchen - Passau.V. Passau - Linz.

VI. Linz - Devin.V II. Devin - Szap.

V III. Szap - M outh of Tisza.IX. Mouth of the Tisza - Moldova-Veche.X. Moldova-Veche - Turnu-Severin.

X I. Turnu-Severin - Braila.X II . Braila - Black Sea.

The distinguishing features of these sections are shown in Tables Nos. 4 to 15, and are described more fully in the succeeding pages.

In so far as ice, fogs, mists, winds and storms are concerned, there is no need to divide the river into a large num ber of sections.

Above the Iron Gates, the countries report ice conditions as follows :

G erm any From December to February (12 to 22 days).Austria .............. From December to February (10 to 15 days).Czechoslovakia From Christmas to March 1st.H u n g a ry From December to March (40 to 60 days).S.H.S. Kingdom Average one m onth ; maximum four months,

from December to March.

The accompanying table -—■ No. 16 — furnished by the C. E. D., shows the situation as regards ice a t the m outh of the river. This m ay also be taken as an index of the conditions existing throughout the section below the Iron Gates.

In addition to obstacles to navigation formed by the ice, there is usually less water in the river during the winter m onths th an a t any other time, thereby increasing the difficulties of navigation.

Proceeding downstream until one reaches Belgrade, there is little danger to shipping from Minds and storms. I t is reported th a t the p a rt of this port lying along the Danube is not satis­factory on account of the high winds which sweep down from the north and east.

On the Roum anian section of the river, the north winds occasionally stir up a considerable sea, m aking i t uncomfortable for small boats.

The worst storms in the Black Sea a t the entrance to the Danube occur during the winter months. However, they are sometimes sufficiently dangerous during the open season to make the entrance channel difficult and to force the dredges to stop work.M Fogs and mists do not, as a rule, present any serious difficulties to navigation, seldom lasting throughout an entire day. They, however, serve to shorten the num ber of hours when boats m ay proceed and are worse in the early spring and late autum n.

A sketch is furnished a t the end of the annex (No. 19) giving the profile of the river.

S e c t i o n I. — ULM - K E H LH EIM .

2,588 to 2,418 kilometers.

This section in conventionally navigable only. The low-water discharge a t Ulm is given as only 40 cubic meters, which, w ith the steep slope throughout, makes navigation of any consequence impossible and the development of the stream commercially unsound. The pre-war project of the B avarian engineer Edw ard Faber provided for a lateral canal 18 meters

— 119 —

wide with a depth of 2.5 meters a t an estimated cost of 83,000,000 marks, which would cer­tainly have to be increased to agree with present prices for labour and material. A comparisonof this sum with the benefits to be expected can point to only one conclusion.

Se c t io n II. — K EH LH EIM - RATISBON.

2,418 to 2,380 kilometers.

This section is used for navigation by small boats which are able a t the same time to en te r the old King Ludwig Canal a t Kehlheim. I t is separated from the section below by the old Roman bridge a t Ratisbon. The piers of this bridge are very large and, together with some auxiliary works, form a very effective weir. The result of this is to increase the depth of the pool above the bridge and also to make the entrance thereto impossible except for small boats, wiiich have to be hauled under the bridge, through the exceedingly swift current, by m eans of cables attached to shore windlasses. This reach will form one of the links in the new R hine­land - Danube Canal, the principal features of which will be described under Section IV.

Se c t io n I II . — RATISBON - HO FKIRCHEN .

2,380 to2.2,258 kilometers.

This section is quite similar to the one just described, but, due to the obstacle formed by the bridge a t Ratisbon, is the f irs t on the river on which navigation is practised to any large extent and on which the usual Danube craft are seen. The discharge is about the same as that in the previous section. The banks and bottom are sand and gravel — a m aterial subject to the effects of the current b u t a t the same tim e one which can be easily handled. The po­sition of the channel has been fixed to some exten t both by high-water levels a t certain places and by m ean-water regulation throughout. Longitudinal dykes and bank revetm ent extend throughout th e section. Their original purpose was to obtain two meters, which they have succeeded in m aintaining for an average of only 150 days a year (see Table No. 5). W hen it was manifest th a t these works would not secure and m aintain the depths desired throughout the greater p a r t of the year, an a ttem p t was made to m aintain 1.4 meters by means of periodical dredging. This has been done principally a t the m outh of the Isar, where an average of 30,000 cubic meters has been removed annually.

The new project for this section provides for open-river regulation by means of sills and spur dykes to obtain and m aintain a depth of two meters a t low water. To this end two expe­rimental sections have been constructed of six and seven kilometers in length. The lower one is a t Niederalteich, below the m outh of the Isar, and the upper one is just below Ratisbon at Donaustauf. According to the reports of the German engineers in charge of the work, both have shown good results so far. The channel is, however, not yet fixed in these sections, and the controlling depth is about 1.6 meters according to the last survey. Depths of 1.7 and 1.8 meters appear in several places. Additional groins will probably improve this con­dition, and the desired results will be secured after their installation. As was to be expected, some dredging has been necessary a t the downstream ends of these sections.

The low bridge a t Deggendorf forms a serious obstruction to navigation, as do the num er­ous cableways of the ferries. A t the end of April i t was necessary for our boat not only to lower her stacks when going under th is bridge b u t also to dismantle the pilot-house and take off some of the gear of her bridge. In addition to the above, one of the navigation companies reports the following obstructions, m any of which will, of course, be removed on the completion of the new project.

Kilometers

2,377 Schwabelweis Bridge : Shoal of rocky boulders.2,368 W alhalla : Ledge rock on left bank.2,361 Frenghofen : Shoal, the left bank being covered with boulders.2,356 Eltheim : Shoal-sand and gravel

— 120 —

Kilometers

2,355 Geissling : Shoal-sand and gravel2,352 Seppenhausen : )) ))2,344 Niederschdorf : )) )>2,341 Pendorf : )) ))2,324 Kagers : )) ))2,320 Peterw ord : )> »2,306 Pfelling : )) ))2,302 Stefansposching : )) ))2,294 Sommersdorf )) ))2,289 N etten : Shoal.2,285 Deggendorf : Insufficient horizontal and2,271 Aicha : Shoal-gravel and sand.2,269 Euckesing : » ))2,260 Endlau : » ))

Se c t io n IV. — H O F K IR C H E N - PASSAU

2,258 to 2,227 kilom eters.

This is th e la s t section ly ing en tire ly w ith in G erm an te rr i to ry , an d one w hich has from the beginning form ed a m ost d ifficu lt passage for naviga tion . I t is usually called th e Bavarian K a ch le t (series of rapids). The riv e r runs th ro u g h a narrow defile, th e banks and bo tto m being fo r th é m o st p a r t ledge rock. T he position of th e channel has, of course, been fixed by the n a tu re of i ts bed, b u t th e steep slope an d m an y p innacles of rock have reduced th e available nav igab le d ep th here to as li t t le as 0.7 m eters, an d freq u en tly to 1 m e te r (see T ab le No. 5).

Recognising th a t open-river regu la tion could n o t succeed a t th is po in t, th e G erm an Gov­e rn m e n t ad o p ted , an d th e C. I. D. app roved , a p ro jec t for canalising th is section. W ith the com pletion of the w orks a t P assau , n o t only will suffic ient w a te r be m ade available from Hof­k irch e n to P assau b u t th e sw ift cu r ren t here will be elim inated .

These w orks form a p a r t of th e R h ine - M ain - D anube Canal system , w hich is projected as a connecting lin k betw een th e R h ine and D anube for barges of 1,200 tons. This project co n tem p la te s th e rep lacem ent of th e ex is ting w aterw ays b y a com bination of open-river low- w a te r regu la tion , from th e G erm an fro n tie r to ju s t above P assau , and from H ofkirchen to R a tisb o n , of canalised sections of th e D anube from P assau to H ofkirchen — th is section — a n d from R a tisb o n to K ehlheim , and of la te ra l and across-country canals from Kehlheim via N u rem b erg to B am berg . F rom th is p o in t th e M ain is to be canalised to A schaffenburg. The old L udw ig Canal, w hich a t p re sen t form s th e cross-country connection, w as opened in 1846, b u t , due to i ts sm all cap ac ity and th e com petition of th e railw ays w hich were th e n being built, i t n ever a t ta in e d an y com m ercial im portance . T he in te re s ts and am ortisa tio n of the capital em ployed in ca rry in g o u t th is u n d e r ta k in g are to be ob ta ined from th e sale of th e energy pro­duced b y th e hydro-electric p lan ts being insta lled in connection w ith th e w orks for th e improve­m e n t of nav iga tion . A ltogether, 34 dam s, w ith locks and pow er-stations, are contemplated. T he dim ensions of th e locks and th e pow er w hich i t is expected will be ob ta ined are as follows :

SectionLocks Power Stations

W idth Length No. Av. Capacity AnnualCapacity

HP. K.W .H.M a i n .......................................... 12 300 16 61,200 360,000,000W e a r n ..................................... 12 300 3 34,400 203,000,000Canal B am berg - K e h lh e im . 12 210 12 96*500 570,000,000D anube a t R a tisb o n . . . 12 210 2 11,300 66,000,000D anube a t P assau . . . . 24 300 Tw in 42,600 251,000,000

T o t a l . . . — — 35 246,000 1,450,000,000

— 121 —

From the point of view of Danube navigation, the works a t Passau are of particular in terest and warrant a short description. They promise immediate relief from a very bad situation and are the first works to close the river. The locks — 230 x 24 x 3 meters — are on the left bank and are large enough to allow a paddle-wheel tug and a tow of four barges to enter a t one time. The lift varies from about five to nine meters according to the stage of the water. The gates of the m iter type — 12.8 meters wide by 13.2 meters high— are arranged with buoyancy tanks a t the bottom , so th a t p a rt of the weight is taken off the hinges when manoeuvring. The estimated tim e for a lockage as given by the engineer in charge of the works is 17 minutes. Next to the locks is the power-house, winch is to be provided with eight vertical turbo-gene- rators of 7,000 h.p., each making the to ta l installed capacity 56,000 h.p. The screen is of the usual type, 274 meters long, and is almost parallel to the direction of the current. The power-house is about 148 meters long and 16.5 meters wide and 42 meters above the foundation. The dam or weir extends from the power-house to the right bank — a distance of 175 meters. It is provided w ith six openings of 25 meters each, the piers betwreen the openings being 5 meters thick. Each opening is provided with twro gates and slotted for the installation of an emergency dam. As a general rule the upper gate will be used for regulating the pool level and for passing ice and floating debris, the lowrer gate being used to pass large amounts of water and to clean sediment from the bottom. The gates are operated from a bridge carried on the piers. As the dam has no navigable pass, two openings have been left until the completion of the channel-ward lock, which has been made sufficiently deep over the upper sill for it to be left open during the completion of the centre section of the dam. I t is expected that navigation will be routed through this lock during the summer of 1925, and the entire works will begin to function as planned in 1926.

Se c t io n V. — PASSAU - LINZ.

2,227 to 2,136 kilometers.

For a short distance below7 Passau, the width of the channel is so small th a t some passenger steamers proceed downstream backwards for a considerable distance before finding sufficient room to make a tu rn safely. Below this point the river widens and, below the m ouths of the Enns and Taun, is sufficiently large to accommodate all except the largest passenger steamers. For the most part, confined as i t is between hills, the position of the channel is stable within narrow limits, and has been made more so by training works which are found throughout the entire section. These, in general, consist of bank revetments and longitudinal dykes, both continuous and in term itten t, connected to the shore by groins. The most im portan t of these works are in the v icinity of Aschach. Others of considerable extent are found just below Passau. The banks and bo ttom are, in general, sand and heavy gravel. Large boulders are, however, found in certain places, and outcroppings of ledge rock are not uncommon and form a menace to navigation where present.

As is shown in Table No. 6 and in Chart No. 17, the regulating works have not secured the results desired. Here, as is the case in practically all parts of the river, two meters a t low w ater has been the dep th sought.

In this section the principal obstructions to navigation are, first of all, the Aschacher Kachlet, and, second, two sharp bends which are found between Neuhauss (2,169 kilometers) and Wesenufer (2,194 kilometers). Ju s t below Aschach the valley of the Danube widens conside­rably, and so far all efforts to confine the low-water bed so th a t two meters will always be available have been unavailing. There are m any large boulders in this section, which are conti­nually cropping up w ith the m ovement of the gravel around them. From time to time parts of them have been removed by blasting and dredging. This part of the river presents one of the most serious obstacles to navigation.

Navigation on the section between Neuhaus and Wesenufer is protected by three signals, and one-way traffic is necessary when w ater is low.

Although i t was impossible to see all of the regulating works due to high water, i t was noticeable th a t such of them as could be seen were in need of repair in several places. In order to provide additional depths where the regulating w'orks have not been successful in m aintaining those projected, dredging has been resorted to. This work is done by ladder dredges, and

— 122 —

occasionally by means of a rake fastened to a powerful tug, which scrapes the gravel from the bottom . On being loosened, the current has sufficient velocity to carry th is m aterial further downstream to a deeper spot. A t best, this sort of work can be considered as having only tem porary benefits.

In addition to the two bad obstacles ju s t mentioned, the following have been indicated by one of the shipping companies :

Kilometers2,219 Schildorf : Shoal.2,103 Jochenstein : Outcroppings of ledge rock on the right b an k .|2.146 Oberranna : Outcroppings of ledge rock in the middle of the stream.2,187 Schlagen : Shoal of gravel and small stones and sharp curve a t th is point makes

the navigable channel extremely narrow even a t mean water. The training works are reported as having been neglected a t th is spot for years.

2,159 /57 Aschacher K achlet : (See above).2,156 B ra n d ts ta t t : Shoal extending from the righ t b an k ; one of the w orst places in

Austria.2,155 Langenhaufen : Shoal of gravel ; small stones and rocky boulders. At low

w ater the channel is reduced to 25 meters in width.2.147 H agenau : Shoal.2,143% W ithering: Exceedingly narrow channel a t low w ater and deterioration of

training works.2,142 Below W ithering : Exceedingly narrow channel a t low w ater and deterioration

of training works.

I t will be noted th a t the first two of these obstructions lie in the section of the river forming the frontier between A ustria and Germany. A n agreement between these two countries dating back m any years provides for the m aintenance of the channel. I t was understood from Berlin th a t an agreem ent was now being sought with Austria for carrying out the new works projected along this section, which will form the southern term inus of the Rhine - Main - Danube Canal. Vienna claimed, however, th a t no definite arrangem ent had been sought b u t th a t i t had a general knowledge of the project.

The evident failure of the present system for improving the river a t Aschach has forced the A ustrian authorities to the conclusion th a t the only suitable method of securing the necessary depths will be either to canalise the river or else to construct a lateral canal, the la t te r a t present being considered by them as the best solution. I t will be noted th a t here again, if the project is carried o u t as a t present projected, there will be a combination of river im provem ent together with the developm ent of hydro-electric power. I t is thought by some th a t the Brandstatt stretch should also be improved by canalisation.

Se c t io n VI. — LINZ - DEVIN.

2,136 to 1,880 kilometers.

The entire section lies in Austria and in m any respects is similar to the one ju s t described. From Linz to Ardagger the country is fairly open and several subsidiary channels appear. From Ardagger to Krems the river again passes through a defile. Below this point and as far as Greifenstein, the valley widens and presents in a lesser degree the same appearance as it does fu rther down in the Hungarian plains. From Greifenstein to Klosterneuberg both banks of the stream are hilly. From the last-nam ed place to Devin, the valley is comparatively wide ; the hills, however, approach the river quite closely on the righ t bank, the plain being on the left, where several secondary arms are found.

The banks and bottom throughout are generally of sand and gravel, w ith only occasional outcroppings of rock. This condition has perm itted the construction of tra in ing works to fix and deepen the channel. These include levées for the protection of the surrounding lands from high water, longitudinal dykes, bank revetm ents, spur dykes and sills. The principal works in th is section lie in the vicinity of Vienna, where elaborate measures have been taken both

— 123 —

to prevent inundation and to fix and m aintain a navigable channel. The flood plain is very definitely fixed here by levées on both banks, and a lock and dam are provided on the right bank so as to m ain tain the navigability of the Vienna Canal and a t the same tim e to pass some of the flood waters below the city.

The A ustrian Government has considered the improvement of the bad stretch a t Strudenby canalisation.

Many new projects have been under consideration for further development of the river in the vicinity of Vienna, b u t these are concerned principally with an enlargement of the po rt facilities a t th a t point. As these are already too large for the present traffic, any extension in the near fu ture would seem unwarranted.

All new projects in Austria are, however, still in the first stages of development, and there is 110 intention 011 the p a rt of the Government actually to undertake their construction.

The success of the works throughout this section can be seen from an exam ination of Tables Nos. 7 and 8 and Charts Nos. 17 and 18 and a consideration of the following obstacles reported by one of the navigation companies :

Kilometers

2,135 Linz : Highway bridge is serious obstacle to shipping, since the access tothe bridge is not normal to the direction of the current, and the horizontal clearances are too small. Serious collisions with the pillars of the bridge have occurred here.

2,111 M authausen railway bridge : Shoal of gravel, stones and boulders.2,110 Albern : Shoals.2,082 /2003 Wallsee to below Dornach : Regulation works never completed. Shoals

develop a t low water.2,079 Greinerschwall : E ddy particularly dangerous a t high water.2,075 /7 Struden : This has already been touched on. The speed of the current, the

sharp curvature and the rocky reefs make navigation in this section exceedingly difficult.

2,054 /57 Ybbserscheibe : In the upper p a rt of this section there is an accumulationof gravel and small stones interspersed w ith boulders. In the la tte r pa rt there are rocky reefs in the middle of the stream which considerably narrow the channel.

2,045 Pôchlarn : Shoals of gravel and small stones.1,939 Above W eitenegg : Regulation works not completed. Shoals develop a t

low water.2,027 Aggsbacher Schwal : Shoal.1,995 Hollenburg : Rocky reefs extending from right bank over more than half of

w idth of stream, and opposite Hollenburg from the left bank ; narrow channel makes shipping difficult.

1,970 and extending upwards to Stein : Boulders.1,974 Uferlocken : Need for contraction works evident. Remains of old Mole

dangerous to shipping. In autum n 1922 a loaded barge wrecked here.1,950/63 Low-water regulation works never completed in th is section. Makes

navigation difficult, particularly for passenger ships operating a t night.1,938 Kuchelau : Shoal. During the last period of low water the smallest depth

in Lower Austria was registered a t this point, i.e. 1 m.1,930 Vienna P ra te r Quay : In order to provide manoeuvring space for vessels,

certain of the spur dykes on the left bank were never constructed. The in ten tion was to keep this space clear by dredging. This has been neglected, and during 1924 there have been reported serious accidents a t this point. In March 1925 a loaded barge was wrecked here.

1,886 / l ,906 Regulation works incomplete : shoals a t Deutsch-Altenburg (1,887 km.),W ildungsnauer (1,895 km.). Orth (1,902 km.).

— 124 -

S e c t i o n V I I . — D E V I N - SZ A P .

1,880 to 1,810 kilometers.

This is the las t section where the river is somewhat torrential in character. Szap is taken as the end of th is section as the profile of the stream changes sharply a t th is point. Naviga­tors, however, generally change the ir tows a t Gonyu, a little farther down the river where ancho­rage conditions are better. There are several subsidiary arm s and channels in the section, but the current is still swift and the sand and gravel carried is of a coarse variety. The country is fairly rugged from Devin to Bratislava, b u t below th a t point the hills are a t some distance from the river.

The regulation works in A ustria in the sections further up the river have assisted the natural tendency of the stream to deposit its burden here, and have considerably increased the difficulty of improvement. In the lower p a rt of the section the works constructed so far consist of levées for protection against inundation of the surrounding territo ry , of longitudinal dykes and revetm ents, and of dams to cut off secondary channels.

In 1896 i t was found th a t th is work was no t sufficient to m aintain the desired depthsa t low water, eight to ten shoals appearing w ith a m inim um depth of 1.4 m. In about 1908 theHungarian Government began the construction of spur dykes and groins a t the upper end of the section in an a ttem p t to secure the projected two meters. Tins work was carried down the river for about th ir ty kilometers, when the war stopped construction. N ot only was new constructed stopped bu t, since the war, m aintenance of the existing works has been neglected, and the channel is now tortuous and contains m any shoals.

In the Protocol entered into between the representatives of Czechoslovakia and those of H ungary on the s.s. “ Orel ” in October 1923, i t was agreed as follows :

(1) From 1,840 to 1,862 km. the channel is in a satisfactory condition.(2) Section a t Vajka (1,833 to 1,840 km.) forms an obstacle to navigation, as the

depth above the three shoals is only 16/17 dms. a t low water. The Bratislava Strom- bauam t recognise th a t the reasons for this unfavourable condition are as follows :

(a) The damaged m ean-water regulation works, through which too much w ater escapes into the side arms.

(b) The dams for closing the side arms are in places so much damagedth a t they no longer fulfil the original purpose of directing the w ater into them ain channel.

( c) The low-water regulation works have probably sunk, so th a t they no longer have the effect required for m aintaining the low-water channel.

(3) The m ost serious obstacles for navigation a t present are the group of shoals situated between 1,815 and 1,821 km. (Baka, Bes, Varjas and Asvany). The reasons for these shoals are, in the opinion of the hydrographic offices in Bratislava and Kom arno, the same as those described under 2.

(4) The Czechoslovak representatives draw atten tion to the narrow places at Rem ets and Bagomer, 1,826 km. W ith regard to the narrow place a t Bagomer, the H ungarian representatives consider th a t the existing works are not in dangerand th a t there is no obstacle to shipping a t this place.

An original fau lt of the regulation was th a t the channel was m ade too straight. With a deterioration of the works i t has become more and more difficult to m ain tain a satisfactory low-water channel, and frequent shoals are to be expected. The principal ones reported by navigators are as follows, these, i t will be seen, agree w ith the points mentioned in the Pro­tocol previously referred to :

No. 1877 Devin (stone quarry)1844 Csoloszto 1826 Rem ets

— 125 —

No. 1824 Lipot 1821 Boka 1819 Bes1816 Asvany - Varjas.

It is to be noted th a t in general for the upper 30 km. the only bad shoal is ju st below the mouth of the Morava a t Devin. An obstruction was also reported a t Bratislava, 1,867 km., but it is believed th a t th is was a snag, lost anchor or the like and not a sand bar.

The maintenance of this section is now particularly difficult, as i t forms a frontier for its entire length with the exception of about 11 % km. in the vicinity of Bratislava. Above the short stretch a t Bratislava, the river forms the frontier between Austria and Czechoslovakia and below it, between the la tte r country and Hungary. In the A ustrian section the shoal at Devin was particularly bad, ty ing up traffic completely for about ten days last year. After much negotiation the interested Governments (Austria and Czechoslovakia) signed an agreem ent on May 16th, 1925, laying down a project for further regulation of this section. I t is under­stood th a t work was prom ptly begun, bu t on Ju ly 20th, 1925, was still incomplete. Each country was to build the dykes and sills on its own shore, the Czechoslovaks to do the necessary dredging during and after the completion of the project. Costs are to be borne equally by both countries. I t is thought th a t a be tte r arrangement would be to divide the section so th a t each country would be given a definite stretch of a certain number of kilometers in which i t would be responsible for the m aintenance of the projected depth.

On the Hungarian stretch the work to be undertaken is on a much larger scale and the effect of the negotiations is less visible. In the protocol previously referred to, a definite scheme was laid down for drawing up within a reasonable time a scheme for the execution of the necessary regulating works. Although two years have elapsed, this has not ye t taken definite form, the Czechoslovaks desiring to collect more data before embarking on a costly programme and the Hungarians being short of funds.

It is understood, however, th a t the technical committee referred to in the protocol has undertaken surveys of the worst stretch (about 12 km.) and th a t i t will present a project for the approval of the two Governments in the fall. I t is hoped th a t when the project is adopted it will provide for progressive regulation of the entire section and th a t each Government will accept the responsibility for a definite stretch of the river rather than for each to do the work on its own shore having no one responsible for the channel. Due to the location of the quarries, it would appear desirable for the Czechoslovaks to take the upper pa rt of the section and the Hungarians the lower part. In October 1924 the agreement was reached whereby the Czecho­slovaks and H ungarians are to dredge alternately such shoals as m ay appear pending the adop­ting of the definite project for regulation.

The Czechoslovak dredging p lan t is the most modern on the river, and i t should succeed in preventing any long delays to traffic due to shoals. I t should be noted, however, th a t Iowr water here cuts off Bratislava, all Austria and Germany from the lower river, and a glance at the traffic m aps and charts will show the serious consequences of such a condition.

In considering the future project for improvement, both Czechoslovakia and H ungary have agreed th a t in principle there is no objection to dividing the river so as to give each a definite sector where i t will be responsible for all regulation works from bank to bank.

Se c t io n V III. — SZAP - MOUTH OF TISZA.

1,810 to 1,216 kilometers.

This is the first section where the river enters the plains and where the velocity of the current is much decreased. The cross section is somewhat greater than in the section just described. Both of these conditions tend to make navigation easier, this being the first section described where night navigation is regularly possible and permitted. From Komarno to Buda­pest either one or both banks are formed by hills, the narrowest and most mountainous part of the valley being a t the big bend just below Estergom, a t Visegrad. Below Budapest, the banks are in general low and subject to overflow. Occasionally there are low cliffs of loess, a

— 126

m ixture of sand and clay. We have throughout this section on the low banks high levées at varying distances from the channel which confine the flood waters and prevent the neighbouring territo ry from being inundated. For the m ost part, too, there are regulating works for the mean stage of water. These consist of dams across secondary arms, cut-offs a t large bends, revetment of banks, longitudinal or parallel dykes, continuous and in term ittent, sometimes connected to the shore by groins, and occasional spur dykes. The work, although according to the compre­hensive Hungarian plan of 1894, has been undertaken to relieve bad conditions as they have appeared in different stretches of the section and no t begun a t one end and carried through continuously to the other. Some of the cuts were m ade m any years ago, no t so much in the interests of navigation as of flood control. The works are not so numerous in the lower part of th e section as above Fajsz, in the vicinity of Budapest, and near Komarno, where th e y are practically continuous. The Hungarian authorities have been criticised for not having begun a t one end of the section with the works and for not carrying them methodically forward to the other. I t is certainly questionable as to whether this criticism is justified, as for the most p art they have eliminated m any of the bad places in present-day H ungary and had started progressive regulation on the frontier section in 1908. The remaining ones reported are : ;

Kilometers

1,806 Modve : Shoal.1,800 Szogye : Shoal.1,791 Gonyu : Shoal.1,789 Czali : Shoal.1,715 Garam-Kovesd : Shoal.1,711 Helemba : Shoal, rocks, direction of current unfavourable.1,482-1,507 Fajsz : Cut-off ; 10 km. of moving shoals ; cut-off just above Baja ; shoals

and shifting tortuous channel.1,425 B atina : Narrow channel, bad anchorage.1,312 Mohovo : Cut-off ; rock in lower entrance, narrow channel.1,234 Beska : Shoal.1,220 Cerevic : Shoal.

The shoals between B aja and Fajsz control navigation between Belgrade and Budapest. The ones below the m outh of the Tisza referred to in the following section are, however, almost as bad.

In th is section the river forms the frontier between H ungary and Czechoslovakia above Szob (1,708 km.) to Szap (1,810 km.). The arrangements between the two countries for mainte­nance and im provem ent of the river on th a t stretch have been discussed under Section VII.

According to a report from the Hungarian Government : “ In consequence of the war and the chaos resulting therefrom, regular regulation and improvement works have — with a few exceptions of m inor importance — been suspended since 1917 ; and from the m odest material resources available for the purpose all we are able to do is to carry out the most essential repairs... Despite the fact th a t for the past eight years we have been compelled to restrict ourselves to carrying ou t the m ost essential works on the Danube . . . the navigation facilities existing to-day are approxim ately w hat they were prior to the Great W ar. Y et in the immediate future it will be necessary to resume the systematic improvement works suspended by force of circumstances and to further improve shipping routes

I t should be noted th a t the removal of the shoal a t Kaposztasm agyar two years ago by regulation and dredging formed a real benefit to navigation.

No date has been set for beginning the “ systematic improvement works

S e c t i o n IX. — MOUTH^OF T H E TISZA - MOLDOVA.

1,216 to 1,049Jrilometers.

Of the sections of the Danube described to this point, this is the m ost favoured by nature in so far as navigation is concerned. Generally flowing through a vast plain, its left bank is almost invariably low, its right, where the river skirts the foothills from Belgrade to Smederevo,

— 127 —

rises to considerable heights. They, as well as the bottom, are generally sand with some m ud. Under these conditions, i t is to be expected th a t the main low-water channel would no t be very stable and th a t numerous arms of varying importance would develop from tim e to time. For years efforts have been made by the Government and by local societies to confine the high- water bed of the river in order to regain large areas of very fertile land which up to the time of undertaking the works had been under water a t various stages of the river. The levées bu ilt have continually restricted the Danube in its meanders, bu t not sufficiently so as to guarantee a suitable channel for navigation.

Under the Hungarian project of 1894, certain training works have been constructed where they seemed most necessary. Due to the excellent conditions as to navigation compared w ith sections higher up, the size of the river and the consequent magnitude of the works necessary and the sums of money involved, these works are not very numerous. The banks were protected by revetments, secondary arms were closed, training works were built and cut-offs made a t :

Kilometers

1,216-1,2251,195-1,2041,1741,1721,1701,163-1,1691,1501,1481,1451,135-1,1401,127-1,1331,1241,116

In 1915 a t the m outh of the Tisza one shoal was reported with a minimum depth of 1.8 m. ; in 1921 a shoal with the same am ount of low water over it developed a t Belarica (1,183 km.), and in 1923 five others appeared. These were due undoubtedly to the change in bed of the river, due to erosion of the banks, and also, b u t to a small extent, to deterioration of the training works installed. Such of th e surveys now being m ade by the S. H. S. Kingdom as could be examined show a considerable difference from th e m aps prepared of the same section by the Hungarians in 1904. W ith a river of the type of the Danube such changes can be expected, and furthermore are not to be considered perm anent, as the channel will shift within limits every few years. As proof of this the Belarica shoal was considerably reduced with the high water of last year.

Very little has been spent on m aintenance of existing structures, and tha t only a t points where levées have been endangered since the war. Since the war, no dredging has been attem pted in the channels, as depths in th is sector have always been as great or greater than those a Fajsz.

As reported by th e engineers of the S. H. S. Kingdom, obstacles to free navigation existat :

Kilometers

1,215 Slankamen : Shoal, small depth.1,198 Belegis : Shoal.1,192 Benovci : Shoal.1,183 Belarica : Shoal, small width of channel.1,132 Grocka : Shoal.1,101 Brza Vrba : Shoal, small depth, unfavourable direction' ofj current.

Floating tree trunks are also present in this sector, and when they become partially embedded in the bottom they form a serious menace to navigation. In 1919 there were 80 of these in the whole S. H. S. sector. L ast summer the situation was reported “ a little better ” by the Direc­tor-General of W aterways. He likewise stated th a t now, as soon as a floating tree trunk is reported, its removal is undertaken.

— 128 —

In th is section there were m any wrecks and vessels sunk during the war, only a few of which have ye t been removed.

As reported, these were : S te a m b o a ts .......................................................................... 8B a r g e s ........................................................................................48P o n to o n s ....................................................................................19Wooden b a r g e s .......................................................................11

Of this number, three steamers and 10 barges had been removed up to the beginning of Ju ly 1925. Some still remain in and on the edge of the channel. Their location was not reported nor was it possible to inspect these, due to lack of time and high water. Since the navigation companies do not complain, however, it is safe to assume th a t the wrecks are sufficiently well m arked by buoys and so located as not to form a serious danger.

As sta ted above, the S. H. S. Government is now making surveys to determine the actual condition of the river. W hat it proposes to do in the future is still uncertain. According to its report, “ the advisability of obtaining greater depths a t low water is being studied from technical and economic standpoints ” . If the old two-meters project is retained, it will probably seek to m aintain this depth by dredging and a minimum am ount of permanent work. If more than two meters is decided on, the means to be adopted will depend on further study. (For depths in past, see Table 10).

Se c t io n X. — MOLDOVA - TURNU-SEVERIN.

1,049 to 930 kilometers.

This section, where the Danube finds its way through the Carpathians, is the worst on the river. Its bed is everywhere composed of rock with a small am ount of overlying material in some places. I t presents a series of cataracts where navigation has always been difficult and sometimes impossible. These are, moving downstream, Stenka, Kozla-Dojka, Izlas- Tachtalia, Greben-Milanovac, Svinitza (Jucz), Iron Gates (Vaskapu) and the Little Iron Gates. About half way through the section there is a narrow gorge where the greatest depths on the river are found. W ith the exception of a very narrow spot a t the upstream end of the Kazan Pass, navigation is not difficult there, the current being moderate and the depths everywhere sufficient.

6^ The difficulties a t the rapids have been overcome to some ex tent by open-river regulation works undertaken by the H ungarian Government, beginning in 1890. Moving downstream, there are open canals a t Stenka, Kozla-Dojka, Izlas-Tachtalia, a longitudinal dyke connected by groins to the right bank ju st below Greben for the purpose of narrowing and deepening the river a t this point and also to m aintain a uniform slope of the water and current in the stretch, an open canal in the vicinity of Jucz, together with a longitudinal dyke, and, finally, the Iron Gates Canal. This is an open canal formed by removing certain rock ledges and by the construc­tion of two dykes in the stream, by which a uniform though steep slope is maintained. In several places not specifically mentioned rocky pinnacles have been removed by blasting and dredging ; the canals are everywhere 60 meters wide. Above Orsova they are two meters deep ; below, three meters.

The Hungarian project was based on an insufficient number of soundings and cross-sections. During the progress of the work it was discovered th a t there were a number of isolated rocky reefs which had not been known up to th a t time and which would prevent the w'ork from se­curing the benefits desired. To a lesser ex ten t the small depths over these rocks was due to a lowering of the surface of the pools due to better conditions for the run-off provided by the new works. This condition was reported to Budapest, and an estimate given for completing the rock removal thought necessary, the plans being subm itted to the H ungarian Minister of Commerce. The sum necessary for carrying out the work a t th a t time while the plant was still on the job was estimated a t 3,045,218 Austro-Hungarian florins. No action was taken. I t is understood th a t when this question was discussed in the H ungarian Parliam ent strong objections were made by certain members to the improvement, as it was considered that by this work a trade route would be created whereby Russian and Roum anian grain would be

— 129 —

able to compete with Hungarian grain, with disastrous results to the latter. W hatever the reason may have been, nothing more was done then, and the works, as originally planned, were opened up for navigation. According to the Service des Portes de Fer of the International C om m ission , present conditions are as follows :

The depths sought, viz. 2 meters above Orsova and 3 meters below th a t place, have been secured in the open canals and where the river has been narrowed. The rocks previously m e n tio n e d which appeared during the course of the work, and the sandbanks which have ap p ea red later with the increase in the depths in the canals and with a slight drop in the level of the water, which was produced by the easier means of discharge provided by the works and a downstream drift of sediment, are located a t and above Coronini, above and below the Stenka Canal, a t the lower end of the Kozla-Dojka Canal, a t P iatra Lunga, Jeleseva Greek, opposite the m outh of the Izles, Tachatalia (Vlas), between Groben and Svinitza, below Jucz, Kalniki, Ada-Kaleh, and below the Little Iron Gates at Duda. For the most part these spots are rocky reefs, the only sand-bars being in the vicinity of Coronini and a t the downstream end of Ada-Kaleh.

As to the permanence of these conditions, it m ay be remarked th a t an examination of the figures since 1837 shows th a t in recent years there has been a tendency for the w ater level to decrease. 1921 is the worst year on record. (See Table No. 11.) It m ight be expected that such conditions would move in cycles and th a t better water in the years to come m ight reasonably be expected. It is true th a t conditions as to water do move in cycles. These are, however, exceedingly irregular and cannot be counted upon. There are so m any elements entering into the result which determines the discharge of a river th a t one m ay never be sure of which combinations are going to occur, and consequently predictions as to the future are generally unreliable. In this case, however, there are special conditions which would tend to indicate th a t years of lowr water m ay be expected with more frequency in the future. These conditions arise from the progressive regulation of the river by which large areas of land have been reclaimed, thus decreasing the reservoirs which feed the stream during 1owt water and tending to make the run-off easier a t all times.

The following projects have been suggested as a means for correcting conditions a t the points indicated and for taking care of the future :

1. Continuation of the present system, i.e. the removal by blasting or dredging of the 14 rocky reefs and sand-bars which have been enumerated above. While these measures will provide the necessary depths, additional work is thought necessary by the authors of this plan in order to provide for the economical operation of tugs and tows in this sector. There are two factors which influence the navigation companies in their present system of operation. These are the extremely strong currents which are encountered a t all times in the Iron Gates Canal and a t times of high w ater a t Greben, and the narrow' width of the canals, which make it impossible for 2 tows or boats to pass in them.

With regard to the first, due to the different strength of currents in various parts of this stretch of the river, it has been found economical for tugs to tow7 a different number of barges from place to place. For example, in the Iron Gates Canal, where the current is as much as10 miles per hour (5 meters per second), and in the Greben rapids, where a t high w ater the velocity of the current is ju s t about the same, a tow-boat of from 1,000 to 1,400 h.p. can handle one barge of 800 tons cargo, or two of 500 tons cargo, whereas, above and below and between these points the same boat can handle several such barges without difficulty.

In order to provide the necessary anchorages so th a t tugs m ay anchor barges above and below the difficult stretches while proceeding with only one or two, and while returning for others, basins are contem plated a t Alibeg, a t Berzaska opposite Drencova, at Dobra, Klucs, Svinitza, below Milanovac a t Lubotin, a t the lowrer end of the island situated near Plavisevitza, at Vodica and a t Gura Vaii.

In order to provide waiting places for boats and towrs a t the ends of the sections which are capable of handling only one-way traffic at times of low water, basins are proposed a t Alibeg above Liuborajdia, a t Drencova above Izlas, a t Greben, a t Svinitza above Jucz and a t Vodica.

It is thought th a t, w ithout these basins, boats will not be able to pass each other from Alibeg to below Stenka — a distance of 10 km., from Berzaska to Svinitza — a distance of 24 km. and from Svinitza to below Jucz — a distance of 10 km.

9

— 130 —

W ith all of these basins, the cost of the plan was estimated before the w ar a t 16,000,000

gold crowns. I t was estimated by one of the engineers of the International Commission that the minimum am ount of work necessary a t present, w ithout including all the basins, could be done for a sum no t exceeding 8,000,000 gold crowns. This is more in line with the estimate m ade while the work was in progress.

2. There are two other projects for improvement by means of open-river works.The first of these is in the form of a series of long lateral canals. These canals will p r o v i d e

a uniform slope over a considerable distance and will thus eliminate to a large extent the s t r o n g currents which now exist. They will likewise provide two routes for navigation : the r o u te through the canals and the open-river route when the water is high. The estimated c o s t of this work is 280 million gold crowns.

3. The last of the open-river projects consists of a series of short lateral canals with locks b u t w ithout dams across the entire stream. The advantage of this project is th a t it eliminates the swift currents a t the rapids and a t the same tim e leaves the river open, so th a t boats going downstream a t times of high water m ay take advantage of the current. In th is way i t also increases the navigable capacity of the stream, as i t provides for two-way traffic. T h is , like the project described under (1) above, contemplates works in conjunction w ith those already existing, the to ta l cost of which is estim ated a t 230 million gold crowns.

4. All of the other projects proposed abandon th e idea of an open river and consist of canalisation in one or more forms. While these projects are somewhat more costly than those ju st described, they also include plans for the development of the enormous hydro-electric resources of th e Danube a t this point. They include schemes for the construction of one high dam below the Iron Gates, w ith twin locks and a power-house, and the construction of two dams — one below the Iron Gates and one below Greben cataracts, w ith the necessary locks and power-houses.

Of these projects proposed, the m ost detailed is th a t now in preparation by the S. H.S. Kingdom. This project has been drawn up on the basis of all the documents which the Government has been able to secure on the work carried out by the Hungarians and such others as i t could obtain. These studies are incomplete, as in some respects they have been carried out entirely on the basis of data which has been collected on the Serb-Croat-Slovene b a n k of the river. The necessary information on the geological formation of the bed of the river where the foundations m ust be placed and, on the Roum anian side, where the other abu tm en t and the dam m ust be, is lacking. According to their engineers, there should be no grave difficulty in solving these two problems, as the geological studies which have been c a r r ie d out so far indicate th a t satisfactory conditions will be found. Their work has been divided into four parts : economic, hydro-technical, electric and geological studies. The la tter in parti­cular has furnished data on the geological composition of the Iron Gates sector which was hitherto unknown. They have decided th a t the best system to adopt would be one providing for two dams, w ith tw o locks a t each of them. They have under consideration the construc tion of either one or two power-houses a t each location. The two-power-house scheme is advanced particularly so th a t one m ay be entirely for the use of Roum ania and the other for the use of the S .H . S. Kingdom. W ith such a scheme a depth of 3 meters would be provided from Turnu- Severin to Belgrade. The first of the dams is to be situated just below Greben, and the other below Sip. Twin locks 3 x 24 x 270 meters are contemplated for each dam. The lif t at each place will vary between about 12 meters a t low water to about 4 meters a t high water. The generators a t each dam are supposed to provide 500,000 h.p. I t is also thought that, if the economic considerations as to the sale of the energy produced are such as not to require the construction of both of the dams, the upper one m ay be completed, w'hereby 2 meters depth wrill be obtained for navigation throughout the entire sector. This idea does not seem to be borne ou t by actual conditions as reported by the C. I. D. Sendee des Portes de Fer.

I t will be noted, by a reference to the description of actual conditions given above, that there are shoals below Greben which wrouId have to be removed in order th a t the d esired 2

meters m ight be obtained.The to ta l cost for the entire job is estimated at 800 million gold francs. In the event

131 —

that only the Greben dam is built, the cost will be about 300 million gold francs, distributed as follows :

1. Dam, locks and hydro-electric p lant ................................... 142 million gold francs.2. Hydro-metallurgical and chemical f a c to r ie s ...........................135 ditto3. Liquid capital and unforeseen e x p e n s e s .......................... 23 ditto

300 ditto

It is contemplated th a t about 2,900,000,000 kilowatt hours will be produced a t the Greben dam, 2,500,000,000 of which will be distributed between the proposed industrial w'orks, leaving 400 million kilow att hours for sale for ordinary municipal uses.

The S. H. S. engineers are convinced th a t their economic study shows th a t the investm ent of the necessary capital in the project is justified. The only point on w hich they are not satisfied is the question of foundations previously referred to. They feel confident th a t no insuperable obstacles will be found here, bu t th a t the displacement of the dams by not over a few7 hundred meters from the point selected will be the maximum change th a t their further investigation can produce. The old Hungarian projects counted on the development of much less power than indicated in the present S. H. S. project. A to tal production of only 3,110,000,000 kilo­watt hours was expected, being only slightly more than th a t of the upper dam in the present project.

The engineers of the International Commission, who wrere questioned, are more or less disposed to consider favourably the first of the suggestions for improving conditions, viz. to continue the old Hungarian project. This has the advantage of being comparatively cheap, of being susceptible of gradual accomplishment and of not closing the river. The scheme has the disadvantage of retaining the strong currents which now exist and of not fully utilising the full economic value of the river. On the whole, the projects for canalisation seem to offer the greatest num ber of advantages, both for navigation and in other respects. They entirely eliminate the present bad navigation conditions by removal of the risk a ttendan t on operating in strong currents by the release of the large tugs for service elsewhere, by a reduction in operating expenses in traction and in the saving of a great deal of the time now consumed by a tow in having to go through the sector piecemeal.

They likewise furnish both the S. H. S. State and Roumania an enormous source of power the indirect benefit of which cannot even be computed.

The sole question here is whether Roumania and the S. H. S. Kingdom can embark on an industrial programme of the m agnitude contemplated by the S. H. S. engineers.

At present the swift current in the Iron Gates is overcome by means of powerful tugs, and also by means of an old and inefficient boat called the “ Vaskapu ” . It is operated by means of a cable lying on the bottom of the canal, and takes two hours to make a round trip, during which time the canal cannot be used by other vessels. All of the larger companies have tow-boats sufficiently powerful to handle their barges w ithout the aid of the “ Vaskapu ” , and it is only the small ones which use this means for going uptream. The cost of maintenance of this boat has always been in excess of its earnings and forms a considerable item in the budget of the Commission for its Iron Gates Service.

The “ Vaskapu ” should be scrapped immediately, and if the smaller companies cannot secure the services of powerful tugs belonging to the large companies a t a reasonable rate, the Commission itself should request bids for services of these tugs. If the offers are unsatis­factory, it should rent or buv a locomotive and operate it on the track alongside the canal and haul the barges up in this way. This system is much quicker and much more satisfactory in every respect than is the “ Vaskapu ” . According to reports, this scheme was used during the war writh “ satisfactory success ” .

In considering the completion of the old Hungarian project, one should also pay some attention to the to tal navigable capacity of the river, which now furnishes only a one-way traffic route in certain sections. The maximum traffic through the Gates, according to the statistics of the International Commission, in any normal year has been about 720,000 tons. During the war, on May 15th, 1917, 16 or 18 tugboats took 43 barges of 20,000 tons through the Iron Gates Canal. This, with a navigation season of 300 days which could be

— 132 -

provided by the removal of the present obstacles, corresponds to a figure of 6 million tons a year. I t is to be seen, therefore, th a t this method of improvement would provide for all reasonable increases in traffic which m ay be expected for a long time to come. F u r th e r the towing service by locomotive would probably increase the am ount possible to handle through the canal. Even w ith th is the Greben ca taract would still present a formidable obstacle, as th e current there is, a t times of high water, for a short distance, practically as swift a s at the canal. I t would appear, then, th a t a t certain seasons, i.e. high water, th a t the large tow-boats would still be a necessity.

S e c t i o n X I. — TU R N U -SEV ER IN - BRAILA.

930 to 171 kilometers.

Throughout this section, which is the last on th a t p a rt of the river suitable only fo r river boats, the Danube is everywhere of large proportions. Flowing along the edge of and through th e broad Roum anian plain, its slope is gentle and the current is moderate. The left b an k is generally very flat, the right for the most p a rt being formed by the low hills a t the foot of the Balkans. Numberless islands and secondary arms and channels are found throughout the section. The bed of the river is generally a sort of sandy clay w ith occasional s t r e tc h e s of gravel and ledge rock. The large discharge, together with certain of the other factors m entioned, make conditions here more favourable for navigation than anywhere in the upper river. A lthough the channel shifts from tim e to time, such changes have never had a serious effect on n av igation . For the most part, depths in excess of the two meters which has been sought have existed without any artificial aid. Such improvement of the channel as has been a ttem pted has been according to the m ost accepted principles and has consisted of dredging shoals as they began to appear. According to navigators, th is work, wiiich has been carried out exclusively by R o u m a n i a , has been done very well. After the war, when practically no work was done, conditions are reported to have been not so good bu t to be continually improving. (See Table No. 12.) The dredged channel is usually m ade from 50 to 80 meters wide and three meters deep. I t is understood th a t work is begun on a falling stage sufficiently far in advance as to have the channel ready a t low water and also to secure the scouring effect of the current. Isolated sections o f levées have been built to protect lowr lands in Roumania, which, with port improvements both in Roum ania and Bulgaria, form the only perm anent works in this section.

The principal shoals reported are :

Kilometers

820-823 Jasen.781-783 Vidbol764-765 Dessa Island.760-761 Kerkenez Island (D).755-756 Petrich Island.738-739 Below Lom Palanca.720-721716-717 Cibar Island.679 Bechet646 Gradistea (D).641 Orlea (D).640-641 Bjeslij (D).630-631 Corabia.596 Gatina (D).570-571 Berzina.561 Condura.559-560 Belini Islands (D).538 Ja n tra (D).496 Slobozia (D).490 Smarda (D).

— 133 —

Kilometers

463 Coreea.460-461 Rahovo.458 Cetatea Veche (D).339 Oltina (D).320 Fermecatul (D).

(D) Indicates places dredged regularly since the war. Of these, the shoal at Oltina seems to be the most persistent and the one which has received ths most attention.

The Roumanian Government owns seven dredges and the Bulgarian Government one. The S. H. S. Kingdom has never had any dredges on this section of the river. The largest part of the dredging done by the Roumanians is a t the entrance to and in their ports, and all of the dredging so far a ttem pted by Bulgaria has been in her ports.

Other th an shoals, th e re are tw o obstacles or sources of danger to shipping in th is sector. The first of these are num erous snags formed by tree tru n k s p a r tly em bedded in th e bo ttom . Roumania has rem oved these as th e y have been reported.

The other obstacles are formed by the wrecks of vessels sunk during the war. The to ta l number of these is 233, of which 67 had been removed before May 1st, 1925. This work is a serious task, due to the size and conditions of vessels, the time they have been under water, the current and the severe winter season. Roumania has equipped herself, a t considerable expense, to carry out this work, and can be praised for what has been done so far. According to the report of her engineers, she plans to “ intensify her efforts ” in this direction.

The wrecks m ay be classified as follows :

A. Raised and Removed.

1. Barges (schleps) ........................................................................ 272. Landing pontoons........................................................................ 123. Tugs ......................................................................................... 94. D re d g e s ......................................................................................... 15. Barges (chaloupes) ............................................................... 86. Barges (ceams) ........................................................................ 37. Floating cranes ........................................................................ 48. Barges (tanks) ....................................................................... 19. Barges (bacs) ....................................................................... 1

10. Barges (chalands)...................................................................... K)

Total rem o v e d ............................. 76

B. Under Water.

1. Wrecks in channel outside of port limits (m arked) 62. Wrecks inside port limits :

(a) Those which must be avoided by vessels landinga t quays .................. 18

(b) Those which are sunk in deep water or againstquay (reported by engineers as no obstacle) ... 29

3. Wrecks outside of channel proper and outside of portlimits :(a ) Those immediateljTbelow Oltenitza, along left bank 45(b) Those in other places ............................................. 68

Total not r e m o v e d ............................. 166

These include steamers, tugs, barges, tanks, pontoons, elevators, cranes and even two ra ilw ay cars.

— 134 —

Of these, navigators find those in the channel and a t Oltenitza the most dangerous It is reported th a t as long as the buoys are in place there is no particular danger, but that the channel buoys are removed before the navigation season is closed in the fall, and that the wrecks a t and below Oltenitza are never marked. Barge S. R. D. 7 was damaged by a collision with one of these last autum n.

Wrecks which are not marked are reported by one of the steam boat companies as lying011 the Bulgarian side a t Marotin, Taban, Orehovo, Biku and in the arm of Ciftada.

A large p a rt of this section of the river forms the frontier between Roumania, Bulgaria and the S. H. S. No agreement exists between these States as to how the dredging and marking of the channel shall be carried out, so fa r both having been done exclusively by Roumania.

In the autum n of 1924 Bulgaria addressed a note to Roumania sta ting th a t it was ready to assume its p a rt of the responsibility, bu t so far the delegates of the two countries have not met to discuss a convention.

The S. H. S. Kingdom has for some time, according to its Foreign Office, sought an agree­m ent with Roum ania both for the work here and in the cataract section, bu t Roumania was not able to send a delegate to discuss the m atter until June of this year. During th a t month an agreement was made concerning the administration of the Iron Gates. This was presented to the C. I. D. for approval a t its last session, bu t action on it was postponed until the following meeting. The other sections of the river forming the frontier between these two States were not included in the arrangement.

Se c t io n X II. — BR A ILA - BLACK S E A

171 to 0 kilometers = 98 to 0 miles.

This section m ay be differentiated from the others in m any ways. F irst of all, it is the only section of the river suitable for maritime navigation. Second, it embraces the entire delta sector where conditions on the river for the most pa rt differ from those found elsewhere. Third, the European Danube Commission has jurisdiction here, whereas the International Commission is charged w ith the supervision of the o ther parts of the river.

The general situation can be seen on Map No. 19. On account of its peculiar situation, on account of the difficulties encountered in m aintaining the river in a state suitable for navigation, and on account of the a ttacks made on the Commission by and in Roumania, it is believed that a special description is warranted. For this purpose the main river from Braila to Chatal d ’Ismail (head of passes) ; the reach from Chatal d ’Ismail to Chatal St. George (St. George Pass) ; from the last-named place to Sulina (Sulina Pass), and the entrance channel over the bar will be considered separately.

The description is based on reports of the Chief Engineer and the Board of Consulting Engineers of the C. E. D. and on conversations with the Chief Engineer.

Braila to Chatal cTIsmail.

This p a rt of the river presents fewer obstacles to navigation than do those further down. Its w idth between the high-water marks on the banks is always greater than 1,000 ft. It sometimes reaches 3,000 to 4,000 ft., where, a t the period of low water, the shoals appear which present the most serious obstacles to the passage of ocean-going ships. The shoals in question are found between the following mile posts : 46 to 48, 51 to 52, 54 to 57, 66 to 67, 72 to 74, 75 to 76, 82 to 84 and 87 to 98.

During the last few years only one of these shoals, J h a t situated between the mile 82 and mile 84 called the Zeglina Shoal, a little above Galatz, and a t the bend where the Sereth empties into the Danube, has caused any obstacles to navigation. The existence of this shoal is due to the sediment brought down by the Sereth. This runs entirely through Moldavia from n o r th to south, and is fed by m ountain torrents having their source in the Carpathians. Traversing the plains a t the foot of the latter, it brings down large quantities of alluvial deposits to the Danube during the time of melting snow in the m ountains and during the summer rains.

— 135 —

The width of the Danube a t this point is increased from 1,600 to 4,000 ft., which causes a reduction in the velocity of the current and prevents it from taking away the increased sedi­ment brought down by the Sereth. The construction of perm anent works which m ight be undertaken here in an effort to remedy this trouble would not be practical from an economic standpoint. The only recourse, therefore, is to dredging.

The shoal is, of course, periodically removed by the high water in the Danube after the rains stop in the mountains near the source of the Sereth. The minimum utilisable depth in th is p a rt of the river was a t the tim e of our visit 26 ft.

Chatal d'Ismail to Chatal St. George.(Tulcea Arm, St. George Pass.)

At the time of low water there are two shoals above the 39 and 40-mile post. It has been necessary to dredge these points during recent years w'hen the depth a t the entrance has fallen below 20% ft-

It is thought by the Commission th a t the expense of carrying out permanent works a t these places, without taking into consideration the entire elimination of the Tulcea bend, w7ould be too high in comparison to the benefits to be obtained for navigation. This bend, which is the most notable characteristic of this reach, presents certain inconveniences for navigation. Howr- ever, as few' ships have grounded a t this point, it m ay be assumed th a t these difficulties are not grave.

Above Tulcea, between mile 40 and 41, there is a second bend. By the continual erosion of the left bank of the river a t this point, the bend has a tendency to become more accentuated from one year to the next. In this way a grave difficulty for navigation will arise unless a t some season of high water the Danube itself cuts off the entire bend. At present, although the wrid th of the river a t th is point is large, the channel is very much reduced, and vessels m ust take special precautions in order to pass.

The two bends could be eliminated by making an artificial cut-off between mile 37 and 41. It is to be noted th a t there is considerable erosion of the right bank of the river just above Chatal St. George. If continued, this will, a t a more or less early date, make a change in the division of the discharge of the river between the arms w'hich form the delta.

When the works wrere begun in 1857, the discharge wras apportioned between three arms as follows :

Sulina 7 %St. George 30 %Kilia 63 %

According to the last gauges this had changed to :

Sulina 12 %St. George 20 %Kilia 68 %

Chatal St. George to Sulina.(Sulina Pass.)

This branch of the Danube wras used in the past almost exclusively to give access to ocean­going ships to the interior parts of the river. Before the establishment of the European Danube Commission the least depth in the Sulina arm, reduced to mean low' w'ater in the Black Sea, was only 8 English feet. Its course wras very irregular, and its width, measured between the high- water mark on the banks, varied betw'een 300 and 800 feet.

By the execution of 10 cut-offs made between 1868 and 1902 this ann was shortened by nearly 12 nautical miles, eliminating a t the same time 27 bends w'hich hindered navigation. By this jjnportant regulation work, as wrell as by the construction of a considerable number of spur dykes and by dredging, the depth was greatly increased, until it reached th a t of the channel across the bar a t the entrance. The width of this arm, measured between the high-water m ark

— 136

on the banks, varies a t present between 400 and 500 feet. The minimum usable depth is actually 23 ft.

Dredging is not required except rarely. By the completion of two or three spur dykes situated a t 13 1/2 and 23 miles, where generally the least depths are found, even this dredging can be eliminated in the future. I t m ay be remembered th a t recently, when the usable depth of the Sulina arm was less th an th a t of the channel a t the entrance, i t was possible to remedy this s ta te of affairs in a relatively short time by the use of a powerful suction dredge of the European Danube Commission.

The banks of the arm subject to erosion have been protected by stone revetments. Follow­ing the world-war, these revetments were in a bad sta te of preservation. The repair of these is undertaken a t the tim e of low water and when the floating plant now employed a t the more im portan t works a t the entrance is available to carry out the necessary transport of material. (E x trac t from C. E. D .’s report).

Entrance Channel.

At the tim e of the selection of the Sulina entrance for improvement, the average depth was 8 ft., which was often reduced in the autum n, the season for the exportation of grain. When the European Commission was formed in 1857 it selected the late Sir Charles H artley as its engineer, who elaborated and presented to the Commission two projects, one for the improvement of the Sulina m outh and the other for th a t of St. George, warmly recommending the latter.

Other plans were drawn up by other engineers recommending different arms for improve­m ent, and different m ethods for the improvement of those arms. A fter a considerable discus­sion, however, the Commission finally decided to improve the channel across the bar a t Sulina as a provisional measure. Accordingly, two jetties of a tem porary nature were begun on April 21st, 1858, and the work w>as completed on J u ly 31st, 1861, although not to the length ori­ginally proposed.

On the day of the completion of the provisional jetties a navigable depth of 17% ft. could be announced, almost double th a t which had existed in the beginning.

Between 1869 and 1870 the south je t ty was prolonged 457 ft., as it was seen th a t a small shoal had formed under the protection of the north je tty . On this account the usable depth had been reduced to 13% ft. in December 1863.

The southern je t ty was extended a second tim e in 1876-77, so th a t its end wras exactly opposite th a t of the one on the north. Originally this difference in length had been expressly provided for in order to protect vessels entering the port during northern storms. Experience m ade it necessary later to sacrifice this advantage, which naturally was more for the benefit of sailing vessels than for steamers.

In 1865, 18 ft. was announed for the first time. In 1866 the depth was again reduced to a minimum of 16 ft. and in 1867 it varied between 17 ft. and 16 ft., in 1868 between 18 and 16 y2 ft., and in 1869 between 17 and 16 ft.

In 1873, 20% ft. was secured by dredging a small shoal composed of debris from wrecked boats and stone ballast. This shoal was situated between the dikes a t the base of the old bar. No dredging was undertaken outside of the ends of the jetties.

A t the end of the five years which followed the completion of the works, the utilisable depth, increased from 6 to 8 ft., had been maintained, and as there was no way to secure the necessary funds for the improvement of the St. Georges arm, the Commission decided to consolidate the provisional jetties a t Sulina.

From 1873 to 1894, w ith the exception of fo u rm on ths in 1876 and 1879, the usable depthof 20% ft. was maintained w ithout interruption solely by the action of the current and without any dredging. A t the end of th is period it was necessary to increase th is depth by provisional means in order to comply w ith the insistent demands of commerce. A dredge began work in the au tum n of 1894 and increased the depth by half a foot. A t the end of 1895 a depth of 24 ft. was announced for the first time, and this depth was m aintained with few interruptions until the end of 1906.

In th a t year a sandbank which had formed and had gradually increased to the south of the entrance had shown a decided tendency to advance towards the north. The channel over the bar was a t this tim e moved from the original E. N. E. alignment to N. E.

— 137 —

Two more dredges were purchased about this t im e , due to the fact th a t the general condi­tion of the Sulina m outh between the jetties was not satisfactory and to combat the continual en la rg em en t and movem ent to the north of the bar outside the ends of the jetties. The original dredge was no t able a t th a t time to take away the deposits of sediment when the year was unusually unfavourable.

Although the chief engineer of the Commission in 1907 made an emphatic statem ent th a t dredging could be counted to secure only tem porary benefits, no a ttem pt was made to create a fund for the extension of the jetties or to provide in any other way for relatively perm anent results. The depth of 24 ft. was maintained, however, almost w ithout interruption until 1914, the year of the outbreak of the world-war. This year was the last year in which a usable depth of 24 ft. was assured a t the entrance. (See Table No. 15 giving available depth over the bar.)

It is understood th a t the Commission began the creation of a fund in 1911 for the extension of the jetties. W hatever am ount was collected never amounted to very much, and it was en­tirely used up during the war.

In 1921 the Commission decided to secure the advice of a board of consulting engineers, w hich reported on Sulina in May of th a t year and, after several months, adopted the following project for further work :

“ We summarise here the conclusions to which our examination of the question has brought us, the reasons for which are shown in the present report.

“ 1. Acquisition of dredging plant, including a hopper ladder dredge of the type of the ‘ Percy Sanderson with two self-propelled hopper barges of proportionate size as a ttendan t plant.

“ 2. Extension of the jetties, commencing with the southern je tty a t a point situa­ted about 500 m. from the actual extrem ity of the jetty . After the completion of a length of about 300 m., commence the elongation of the north je tty a t a point situated about 500 m. from the actual extremity of the northern jetty , the axes of these two prolongations to be those of the existing jetties. The progress of the work and the prolongations should be regulated by considerations given in the course of the report.

“ 3. Opening of a new channel in the axis of the jetties by means of dredging, which should be carried out with the greatest activity.

“ 4. Closure of the two openings left between the old jetties and their prolonga­tions.

“ 5. Supplementary work consisting of :

“ (a ) closure of the branch of Staro-Stambul of the Kilia arm ;“ (b ) construction of works a t the points of bifurcation of the arms in order

to restore a part of the to ta l discharge to the St. George’s arm.“ (c) the study of a disposition permitting a reduction in the am ount of

muddy w ater in the Sulina arm and facilitating, on the contrary, the introduction of clear w ater.”

This project is substantially th a t proposed by the Chief Engineer of the Commission, the difference being a change in alignment and a shortening of the jetties. The results will, of course, demonstrate the soundness of the change or show the lack of wisdom in making it. In our opinion, the trace and lengths proposed by the Chief Engineer seem preferable.

The works were begun in 1922 and, except as to pertain details of construction, have been carried out approxim ately as laid down by the Board of Consulting Engineers as fast as the necessary plant and funds could be made available. When the depth dropped to 13 ft. during the summer of 1924 the consulting engineers were again summoned to Sulina but made no material change in the project. The channel was sim ply shifted to a naturally deeper location in the bed to the north of Sulina, where greater depths could be found. This channel has been maintained to date w ith from 18 to 21 feet of water by means of dredging. The channel through the new jetties was opened to traffic with a 20-foot depth on July 25th, 1925.

A two-hundred-foot channel is now available, to be later widened by the action of the current and by dredging to 300 feet.

— 138 —

W ork on the closure of the Staro-Stambul arm has not yet been begun, nor has anything been done w ith reference to the construction of works a t the point of bifurcation of the Sulina arm, nor in making a study of a disposition which will allow th e introduction of clear water into Sulina and preventing the flood and waters charged w ith sediment. This la tter s tudy will evi­dently last for some time, as up to the present no one has suggested a practical method of secu­ring th is result and m aintaining navigation in the St. George Pass.

TH E DRAVE.

The Drave is navigable upstream from the point where i t enters the Danube to Bares. I t forms the frontier between H ungary and th e S. H. S. Kingdom between Dolni-Miholjac and Bares. In its lower reaches it is entirely in S. H. S. territory.

In consequence of the w ar and the chaos resulting therefrom, H ungary has not been able to undertake regulation and improvement works.

The S. H. S. engineers report th a t in 1923 and 1924 they spent 1,225,000 dinars for repairs to regulation works, for dredging of the winter harbour a t Osek and for bank protection. They have taken out a num ber of snags which formed a serious obstacle to navigation. This stream carries a great deal of sediment. The regulation work has never been entirely successful, and consequently needs constant observation and dredging. This has not been done in a way satis­factory to the shipping companies, and consequently the Danube has been deprived of a feeder which could supply a considerable am ount of traffic.

I t is understood th a t a mixed commission has been agreed upon by the two frontier States to handle the question of regulation and improvement. This commission has not ye t begun to function, and so i t is impossible to judge how successful it will be in maintaining the projected depths.

A ny improvement, however, should tend to increase the am ount of traffic on the whole waterway system.

T H E TISZA.

The next navigable affluent is the Tisza. This river is navigable as far as Szolnok, 328 km. from the m outh, or Tiszafured, 424 km. above its m outh, depending on the stage of the water. From the la tte r point, upstream to Tiszaujlak, a length of 320 km., it is only navigable when the w ater is extremely favourable. A t present the river is available for navigation of the type used on the Danube only to Csongrad, 240 km. above its mouth, except during favourable stages of the water.

For 153 km. above its m outh, the Tisza flows through the S. H. S. Kingdom, the remainder of the navigable section being in Hungary.

The stream has been improved by a combination of regulation work and dredging. According to the navigation companies, conditions were satisfactory before the war. Since then they report th a t dredging has not been carried ou t systematically and th a t conditions are bad. For example, one states th a t a t times of low w ater shipping on the Tisza has been almost entirely suspended. In the summer and autum n of 1923, steamers with a draught of only 9 dm. could go as far as Novi-Becej (65 km.). In order to place em pty barges in position for loading they had to be towed from Novi-Becej by m en or horses to their loading positions, which were sometimes 60 or more kilometres upstream. Several barges were necessary to collect what would have been one full cargo if sufficient depth had been available. They were loaded to about 7 /7 % dm. and were again towed by men to Novi-Becej. A t this place the steamer took them to Titel. In the la tte r place, and sometimes in Novi-Becej, the cargo was transferred to a single barge.

According to the report of the S. H. S. engineers, in 1923 and 1924, 900,000 dinars were expended. This was used principally for the protection of banks which were in danger of being washed away, in the placing of buoys and in surveys.

In the Tisza we have again a reason for the reduction in traffic on the Danube due to the impossibility of using to anything like its capacity one of the most im portan t tributaries.

- 139 —

I t is understood th a t a mixed commission similar to the one on the Drave is contem plated for handling the improvement and maintenance work. Present conditions would seem to indicate the necessity for its p rom pt organisation.

T H E BEGA.

This tribu ta ry of the Tisza, joining the larger river 11 km. above its confluence with the Danube, is especially im portant, as it serves a very highly developed agricultural region. The navigable section of this stream extends as far as Temesvar, the upper part having been canalised by means of six locks and dams. Of these, two lie in Roum ania and four in the S. H. S. Kingdom. The feeder canal is entirely in Roumania. The width of the navigable canal varies from 20 to 30 meters, and its depth is now as little as 1.5 — according to navigation companies sometimes less. This condition is due to the fact th a t from the beginning of the world-war the canal has no longer been dredged. So far, no arrangement has been made between Roum ania and the S. H. S. Kingdom for the maintenance of the channel. This accounts for some of the loss in Danube traffic.

T H E SAVE.

The next tribu ta ry of importance is the Save, which empties into the Danube a t Belgrade. This river is the principal tr ibu ta ry of the Danube and now forms part of the territorial waters of the S.H .S. Kingdom. I t is understood th a t the river has been improved to some ex ten t by permanent works and by dredging. There is a bar of considerable dimensions a short distance above Belgrade which seriously interferes with navigation. Since the war, the S. H. S. Kingdom has undertaken a survey of the river, has established aids to navigation and has done conside­rable dredging in it in an effort to keep it open for barges of the Danube type. This has not been altogether successful, and the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are talking of adopting a new type of barge for the special service on this river. Full information on conditions here was not obtained.

T H E PR U TH .

Moving downstream, the last navigable tribu tary of any importance which is encountered is the Pruth , which lies wholly within Roumania. This river is navigable from its m outh to Nemtzeni, located 370 km. above. From the m outh to Leova, 227 km. upstream, the river can be used by barges up to 500 tons capacity of not more than 1 y2 m. draught. From Leova to Nemtzeni, barges of not more than 300 tons can be used with a draught of not more than 60 cm.

The width of the stream varies from 80 to 120 meters ; its depth is variable, sometimes dropping to as little as two or three feet. The course of the river is very sinuous, its to ta l length to Nemtzeni being 50 % greater than the air-line distance.

Going upstream , barges are hauled by special tow-boats or by oxen on the tow-path. Downstream the barges descend with the current, which varies from 0.4 to 0.6 meters per second. Ice is expected during the same months as for the Danube, i.e. from December 1st to March 1st (90 days). Low water generally occurs from Ju ly 1st to October 1st. The smallest radius of curvature is as little as 50 meters. The banks and bed are, in general, clay, rarely sand and gravel. Such improvement as has been undertaken has been done by means of dredging. Snags are sometimes found in the P ru th and are removed by the “ Service H ydrau ­lique ” of Roumania.

AIDS TO NAVIGATION.

Aids to navigation have been established throughout the course of the river. The number, type and efficiency varies greatly in the different countries and with the condition of the channel offered to navigation. In the upper sections, where navigation is most difficult, the aids are few, as there has been practically no movement at night. W hat the m ovement would be with suitable lights and signals is, of course, difficult to prophesy.

140 —

Germany.

No signals have been installed in Germany except a tem porary one a t the K achlet just above Passau. W ith the completion of the works a t this point no doubt i t will be removed. Above Gonyii, navigation a t night is difficult on account of the lack of signals and is rarely a ttem pted except w ith bright moonlight. I t is understood th a t ships were equip ed during the war w ith searchlights and seemed to find little difficulty in proceeding a t n ight with that assistance.

The Bavarian Lloyd is making a ttem pts to run its boats upstream a t night on the German Danube.

Austria.

No aids to navigation in the proper sense of the word exist in Austria. There are signals on the two bad curves above Vienna, a set of three ju st above Aschach and a set of two near Struden.

Czechoslovakia.

No aids exist in th is country. Some tem porary assistance is furnished by a few bushes placed on the edges of shoals.

Hungary.

The aids consist of range poles on shore, indicating the direction of the channel, and are supplemented during the low-water season by buoys installed by the M. F. T. R. No descrip­tion of these buoys was furnished, nor were any of them seen during the trip , as the water was so high as to make them unnecessary.

S. H. S.

According to m ost navigators, the system of marking the channel in the S. H. S. Kingdom is by far the best on the river. These signals are no t of a very prominent character and require a good deal of a tten tion and m aintenance. However, they serve to show the navigator exactly where the channel is, and they accomplish the purpose for which they were designed in an entirely satisfactory manner. They consist of range poles on shore and of buoys. The lighted buoys consist of a small acetylene lantern on top of a wooden horse, which is fastened to two logs. The logs are no t so long as those in the cataract sector, b u t nevertheless tend to place themselves in line with the current.

In addition to the Danube, the S. H. S. engineers m aintain signals on the Drave, the Tisza and the Save. W here these signals are not sufficient, in the minds of the S. H. S. Syndicate, to completely m ark the channel, th a t company places tem porary buoys. The situation as regards all the waterways in Serbia is shown by the following table :

1. Permanent Signals.Signals on the right b a n k ..................................... 28

„ „ l e f t ............................................. 39„ „ j u n c t i o n s ................................................ ' 4

Floating signals — r i g h t ................................... 21l e f t ........................................ 20

„ „ j u n c t i o n s ............................... 3

2. Provisional Signals.Unlighted : 66.

115 signals, of which . . . 97 are lighteda n d .................. 18 not lighted.

— 141 —

Roumania.

In this section of the Danube the channel is marked by buoys indicating the bars, obstacles and changes of direction. There are two kinds of these buoys -— one the simple can buoy, and the other a lighted buoy. In addition to these there are a number of spar buoys. The following table shows the exact situation as it exists a t present :

No. Year BuoysLighted Simple

Hound floating buoys Total

1 . 1919 6 81 14 1012. 1920 6 52 11 693. 1921 13 74 13 1004. 1922 11 85 5 1015. 1923 13 67 1 816. 1924 12 62 2 767. 1925 15 63 12 90

These buoys are a great help to navigation which is carried on during the night. They should be considerably increased, however, to make the channel safe.

In the stretch from Turnu-Severin to Moldova, navigation is forbidden after dark. There are consequently no lighted buoys here. The type in use for navigation during the day consists of a round disc m ounted on a log, which is fastened to an anchor by means of a chain. This system has some very marked advantages and also some very marked disadvantages. The log, of course, takes the direction of the current, and plainly shows the navigator just w hat he may expect in the way of current as well as the location of the channel. Navigators com­plain, however, th a t the buoys are so placed th a t the logs, which are sometimes as much as 20/25 ft. long, extend into w hat is already a narrow channel.

C. E. D. (European Danube Commission).

At the m outh of the river all aids have been established by the European Danube Commis­sion. The entrance to the Sulina m outh is marked by three lighthouses, by ranges, by five buoys — of which two are lighted — and by m any spar buoys.

“ Throughout the length of the river between Sulina and Braila the buoying of the channel is carried out by means of 42 buoys. Moreover, in the Sulina arm and Tulcea arm, range signals indicating the axis of the channel exist in different places. In the Sulina arm there are nine fixed lights between the 2nd and 8th mile posts. Lights likewise exist a t the heads of the longitudinal dykes of Chatal St. George and Chatal d 'lsm ail, as well as on the rock of Tulcea, while five fixed acetylene lights are installed on the right bank of the river between Chatal d ’lsmail and Braila ” . (Report of the Engineer, C. E. D.)

Special dangers such as bars or other obstacles are promptly marked by the Commission. Painted white piles are driven a t the heads of each of the spur dykes, which plainly m ark these points during high water. The lighting system is still incomplete, making it dangerous for large ships to proceed from Sulina to Braila except in bright moonlight. The question of the installation of additional lights was discussed by the Commission a t its last session, when it was decided not to instal them. To complete the system, 35 additional lights are necessary.

A d d i t i o n a l D a t a .

In addition to the tables and charts previously referred to there are attached others giving some additional information on the physical side of the river’s problems.

Table 1 gives a list of the winter ports.Table 2 gives a list of the bridges with vertical clearances.Table 3 gives a list of the floating plant for the improvement of the channel and ports

as it was reported.In Annex I I I will be found a description of the port facilities used by the larger compa­

nies. Tables 20 to 26 give in a very condensed form the information concerning the Danube Ports as supplied by the Governments of the Riparian States. In many respects the data appears incomplete, bu t it is none the less suggestive of the type of arrangements existing along the river.

— 142 —

T able 1 . — W i n t e r P o r t s .

G e r m a n y :

Regensburg (3 ports) ..................... able to shelterDeggendorf........................................................................................... » »Raklau (upstream from Passau) ............................................ » »

A u s t r i a :

Linz .................................................................................................... able to shelterVienna, Freudenau....................................................................... » »

H u n g a r y ' :

G y ô r .......................... able to shelterEstergom (Gran)............................................................................ » »Budapest :

(a) Ujpest ......................................................................... » »(b) Obuda ......................................................................... » »(c) Lagymanyos ............................................................. » »(d) Soroksar...................................................................... » »

Dunapentele...................................................................................... » »Gemencz (near S zek szard ) ..................................................... » »Sugovica (Baja) .......................................................................... » »

C z e c h o s l o v a k i a :

Bratislava (Pressburg)................................................................ able to shelterK om arno............................................................................................. » »

K i n g d o m o f t h e S e r b s , C r o a t s a n d S l o v e n e s :

B e z d a n ............................................................................................... able to shelterOsek (Drave) ................................................................................. » »Novi S a d .......................................................................................... » »B e lg r a d e ................ » »P a n c s o v o .......................................................................................... » »

R o u m a n i a :

Turnu Severin FlamundaG iurgiu .M a c i n .................B r a i l a .................Galatz ............ ..

able to shelter»»»*

»

Barges or tugs.

1254080

245

200500

700

10045

480360170

1,000

120 800

___ 50

3,125

280100

380

1053772

425180

819

Loaded Empty

2 5 3 01 2 20

7 152 4 404 0 603 0 60

1 3 8 2 2 5

D ata furnished b y riparian States and taken from Le Danube International by d e K v a s s a y .

— 143 —

T able 2 . — B r i d g e s

Vertical Clearance

Above AboveN am e of Bridge Location low

waterlevel

(meters)

highw aterlevel

(meters)

Road Bridge Ratisbon 8 .08 2 .5 5Road Bridge Ratisbon 6 .9 6 1 .4 3Railway Bridge Schwabelweiss 8 .75 3 .2 2Road Bridge Stauf 8 .55 3 .02Road Bridge Railway Bridge

StraubingBogen

8 .858 .30

3 .7 43 .19

L.W. corresponds to reading of + 0.10 m. on Vilshofen gauge

Railway Bridge Deggendorf 7 .98 3 .16 and — 1.00 m. on Passau gauge.Road (Maximilian) Deggendorf 7 .60 2 .7 8Road Bridge Vilshofen 8 .13 2 .15Railway Bridge Steinbach 8 .63 0 .9 8Road Bridge Passau 10.70 2 .05Suspension Bridge Passau 11.10 2 .4 5Railway Bridge Krautel stein 12.84 4 .1 9Road Bridge Linz 10.16 2 .46Road and Railway Bridge Linz 11.74 4 .39Railway Bridge Steyregg 10.96 4 .1 0Railway Bridge Mauthausen 10.58 3 .0 0Road Bridge Stein 11.79 4 .43Railway Bridge Railway and Road Bridge

KremsTulin

11.0511.99

3 .835 .64

Low water of 1908 (0.2 m. below 1911 level).

West Railway Bridge Vienna 11 .83 4 .46Emperor Franz Josef Bridge Vienna 11.71 4 .25North Railway Bridge Emperor

Ferdinand Vienna 11.71 4 .35Road Bridge Prince Adolph Vienna 11.60 4 .24Railway Bridge Stadlau 11.41 4 .0 0Road Bridge Bratislava 13.45 5 .75Railway Bridge Komarom 13.17 7.21Road Bridge Komarom 13.75 7 .79Road Bridge Esztergom 13.84 7 .53Railway Bridge Ujpest 14.60 7 .68Margaret Bridge Budapest 17.04 10.12Suspension Bridge Budapest 13.35 6 .43 Low water of 1911.Elisabeth Bridge Budapest 14.72 7 .80Franz Josef Bridge Budapest 15.11 8.19Railway Bridge Budapest 14.93 8.01Railway Bridge Baja 13.40 6.50Railway Bridge Gombos 12.46 6.77Railway Bridge Novi Sad 13.76 7.83Road and Railway Bridge Cernavoda 44.00 37.00 0.0 on Roumanian Gauge.

Authority : Report of Danube Conference, Budapest. 1916.

— 144 —

T ab le 3 . — F l o a t i n g P l a n t f o r I m p r o v e m e n t o f W a t e r w a y

Country Number P la n t (Type) Capacity Condition

G e r m a n y ....................... 31

Dredges (ladder)Dredge (clamshell)

A ttendant plant not repor­ted.

N ot reported, has removed at mouth of Isar 30,000 m3 pr. yr. of Inn ; 10,000 m 3 pr. yr.

Good.

A u s t r i a

1. U p p e r .............. 211

SteamersSmall dredge (bucket) Dredge (clamshell)

240 h.p. 120 h.p. Fair.

2 . L o w e r .............. 211

Steamers (screw)Dredge (bucket)Dredge (clamshell)Some vessels for transpor­

ting stores.Private p lant not reported

360 h.p. 150 h.p.

C z e c h o s l o v a k i a . . 1 Dredge 30 m3 per hour Recently over­hauled.

214122

14

DredgesTugSteel elevator pontoonsQuarter boatScowsScows for transport of

stone —- each 100 tons Small boatsPrivate plant not reported

each 300 m3 per hour 180 h.p.

N ew ly built.

H u n g a r y .(State) ................... 1 Tug (paddle) 380 h.p. Built 1885

» ................ 1 Tug (screw) 240 h.p. » 1920.» ................ 3 Dredges (ladder) 2,000, 1,500, 2,000 m 3 per

day1,500 m 3 per day

670 tons each

350 tons each

» 1884.

» ...................» ................

* ...................

(Private) ..............

15

3

129

Elevator transporter Steel barges for transport

of stone Wooden barges for trans­

port of stone Dredges ElevatorsAttendant plant not repor­

ted

» 1909.

S. H. S .......................... 5 Dredges (ladder and suc­tion hopper)

Total 720 m3 per hour Old.

4 DredgesAttendant plant of tug,

quarter boats, scows, launches, etc.

Total 90 m3 per hour Poor.

R o u m a n i a .Built 1893, 1904.

» 1897.G a la tz ...................... 2

2TugsFloating docks

100 and 230 h.p.

— 145 —

Table 3 . — F l o a t i n g P l a n t f o r I m p r o v e m e n t o f W a t e r w a y ( continued)

Country Nnoher Capacity Condition

R o u m a n i a (co n td .)Galatz (c o n td .) . . . 2 Dredges each 100 m 3 per hour Built 1886

2 Elevators 120 and 100 tons per » 1905, 1904hour

3 Barges 80 m3 each » 18901 Boat. 28 h.p. » 1910

B raila ..................... 1 Tug 100 h.p. » 18944 Floating elevators 80, 100, 100, 100 tons per

hour » 1906-19081 Dredge 200 m 3 per hour » 18953 Barges 100 m 3 » 18841 Ferry-boat with two lines » 1885

of rails on bridgeService hydraul. 1 Dredge (ladder : backfilling) 600 m 3 per hour Most of this p lant

1 Dredge (ladder : backfilling) 100 m 3 » in fair condition1 Dredge (ladder) 120 m 3 »1 Dredge (ladder) 120 m 3 »1 Dredge (ladder) 110 m3 »1 Dredge (ladder) 100 m 3 »1 Dredge (ladder) 80 m 3 »

15 Barges Total : 1,253 m314 Tugs 2,525 h.p.

Private plant not reported

B u l g a r ia 1 Dredge (ladder) 150 m3 per hour N ew.3 Barges 100 m 3 each3 Tugs 320 h.p. each1 Tug 200 h.p.1 Launch 70 h.p.

Private p lant not reported

C.E.D............................ 1 Survey boat 340 h.p. Built 1924.2 Tugs (screw) 200 and 200 h.p. » 1919.1 Steamer (screw) 30 h.p. » 1884.6 Steam launches Total : 270 h.p. » 1886.1 Dredge P. S. (ladder, self- 1,284 m3 i » 1894.

propelled)1 Dredge sal. (ladder, self- 2,861 m3 1 ») 1923.

propelled)1 Dredge D.S. (suction hop­ 2,258 m3 1 » 1908,

per, self-propelled)1 Dredge C. K. (suction hop­ 1,595 m3 1 » 1912.

per, self-propelled)2 Dredges (ladder) 500 and 495 h.p. » 1880-18812 Barges (self-propelled) » 1922.1 Tender (wood) » 1866. .2 Barges (wood) » 1921.2 Pontoons8 Barges 100 tons each » 1880-1887

2 1 Barges Total : 995 tons.

Condition : good.Data furnished by Governments and C.E.D.

1 Daily average in 1924.

10

— 146

T ab leau 4 . — L e D a n u b e .

SectionK m s à p a r tir Sulina

N o. Section

I . Ulm -----ICehlheim

II. K e h lh e im ................................K atisbonne — R a tisbon . .

HT. R ntisbonne — R atisbon . . H ofkirchen ...........................

IV. H ofkirchen ........................... 2,258P a ss a u ......................................

K m sIrom

Sulina

Long.en

km s

L engthin

K m s

2,5882,418

2,4182,380

2,3802,258

V. P a ss a u . Linz . .

V I. Linz .............D e v i n ...........

V II . Devin Szap .

V I II . Szap .................................Bouche de la Tisza.

M outh of T i s z a .........

IX . Bouch e de la T isza. - M outhof Tisza

Moidova .............................

X . M o ld o v a ..................................T u rn u -S ev erin .......................

X I. T u rnu -S everin .......................B r a ï l a ......................................

X I I . B raïla Suline

2,2272,136

2,1361,880

1,8801,810

1,810

1,216

170

38

122

31

91

256

70

594

Déclivitém /k m

Slopem /km .

Largeur

1,216

1,049 167

1,049930

930171

171

119

a v 0 .73 0 .4 0 to

1 .04

0 .27 to 0 .33

10 .12 to 0 .31

0 .2 4 to 0.61

0 .21 to 0 .4 5

0 .3 4 to 0 .50

0 .3 5 to 0 .40

0 .0 3 4 to 0 .15

m oyenne average

0 .06 0.041 to

0 .062

0.039 to 2 . 0 0

759

171

0.021 to 0.071

0.004 to 0.009

W idth

35 m. to 550 m.

60 m . to 80 m.

Courant

Basses eaux H au tes eaux

Current

L. W . H. W .

Débit

Basses eaux Hautes

L. W.

Aucune navigation im portante No navigation of im portance

T able 4 .

147 —

T h e D a n u b e .

Lit et berges

Bed and Banks

42 m.

60 m to 90 m.

90 m. to 1 .50 m.

300 to 450 m. (Chenal)

(Channel)20 m . to 50 m .

450 to 900 m. (Chenal)

(Channel) 50 to 200 m

250 m. lo

1,200 m,

60 m. (dans les ca­

naux)(in canals)

250 to 1,200 m. (Canaux

dragués)(Dredged

channels) 50 to 80 m.

(dans la rivière 300 pieds au-dessus de la barre)200 ft (in river 300 ft (overbar

1 .0 to 1 .5 5 m /s

0 .70 to 1 .20 m /s

0 .6 to 2 .3 m /s

0 .6 to 1 .75 m /s

1 .0 m. to 1 .68 m /s

1 .0 to1 .6 m /s

0 .5 m Is

0 .65 m /s

3 .0 m /s

0 .30 to 0 .75 m Is

0 .2 to 0 .5 m /s

1 .7 to2 .5 m Is

1 .1 to2 .2 m /s

2 .0 to 3 .2 0 m /s

2 .0 to 2 .5 m /s

2 .0 to3 .0 m Is

3 .0 to4.0 m s

2 .0 m Is.

1 .2 2 m /s

5 .0 m Is

1 .2 0 to2 .50 m . s

0 .8 to 1 0 m is

150 m!

210 m’

210 m1

650 m*

800 m1

1,300 tf I

2 ,70'

2,700 if I

yoo ml

woe ifl

, gravier, argile. — Sand, gravel, clay

850 m1 10,000 if I

1,000 to 1,500 m1 12,50» «

1,500 m= 12,W l

1,080 rrr

2,000 m!

17,000

20,000 a

A la tète du L--,2.100 m’ I 21,000 «î

Moyenne annuelle 5,348 ms

A t head of delta2.100 m» 21,OM”,5,318 m3 yearly aï®

gravier, quelques stratifications ro­uses.— Sand, gravel, occasional ledge

L gravier, stratifications rocheuses.- tid,"gravel and ledge rock

,;r, galets, stratifications rocheuses. - Evcl, boulders and ledge rock

er. Quelques galets e t s tratifications Ileuses. — Gravel. Some boulders and!ge rock.

et gravier. — Sand and gravel.

gravier et argile. — Sand, gravel and

i et sable. Quelques graviers e t s tra tif i ­e s rocheuses. — Clay an d sand. Som e el and occasional ledge rock.

| fications rocheuses recouvertes d ’au tres nations géologiques. — Ledge rock 1 some overlying m aterial.

ncra] sable et argile ; quelques s tra tifi- ons rocheuses. — Generally sand an d: occasional ledge rock.

ai' eIiargiIn Rochers à Toulcha — Sand™l cla>"- Rock at Toulcha

R ayon de courbe m inimum

Min. radius cu rvatu re

T iran t d ’air des ponts au x hautes eaux navigables

par.

Bridge clearances navigable

high w ater

hor. vert.

Ouvrages d ’am élioration

Im provem ent

400 m

200 m

250 m

350 m

350 m

600 m

450 m

700 m

700 m en raison du banc de Adakaleh. R ayon de courbe de 200 m environ.

7Q0 m. due to shoal a t A dakaleh. R of a b t . 200 m exists there

500 m

500 m.

4 7 .3 m

3 6 .7 m

61.5 m

46 m

46 m

100 m

7 3 .5 m

92 m

3 .7 m

4 .0 m

5 .0 m

5 .15 m

6 .0 m

7 .60 m

6.60 m

7.03 m

r a s de pont No bridge

190 m 37 m

Pas de pont No bridge

Aucun ouvrage n ’existe ni n ’est prévu. E sti ­m ation d 'avan t-guerre du canal la téra l 83.000.000 marks-or. — N one in existence nor is an y contem plated. P re-w ar estim ate for la teral canal 33,000,000 gold m arks.

Aucun ouvrage. P ro je t de régularisation des basses eaux avec canal latéral à R a tis- bonne. — None. Low-water regulation w ith la teral canal a t R a tisbon projected .

Régularisation des eaux moyennes. Digues longitudinales e t revêtem ent. P ro je t de régularisation des basses eaux au moyen d’épis. — Mean-water regulation. Lon­gitudinal dikes a n d revetm en t. Low w ater regulation by spur dikes projected.

Régularisation des eaux moyennes. U n nouveau projet de canalisation actuelle­m en t en construction. — M ean-water regulation. New project provides for canalisation already under construction.

R égularisation des moyennes et basses eaux. L a dernière seulement en pa r tie sa tisfa isan ­te. A Aschach, notam m ent, les résu lta ts en­visagés n ’ont pas été obtenus. — M ean and low w ater regulation. L a tte r partia lly suc­cessful only. At Aschach especially results desired n o t secured.

Régularisation des moyennes et basses eaux. La dernière seulement en partie satisfai­sante . A S truden, n o tam m ent les résu lta ts envisagés n ’ont pas été obtenus. — Mean an d low w ater regulation. L a tte r partia lly successful only. At S truden especially results desired n o t secured.

R égularisation des moyennes e t basses eaux à l'aide de digues longitudinales e t d ’é­pis. T ravaux inachevés. Sans résultats satisfaisants. — Mean an d low w ater regulation bv longitudinal and spur dikes. N ot complete. N ot successful.

Régularisation in term itten te aux m oyen ­nes et basses eaux. T ravaux inachevés. Banc à Fajz . — In term itten t m ean an d low w ater regulation. Not complete. Shoal a t Fajz.

Dragages e t quelques travaux de régularisa­tion. Bancs à l’embouchure de la Tisza. — Dredging with small am ount of train ing works. Shoals a t m outh of Tisza.

Ouvrages de régularisation et canaux libres. R ésu ltats assez satisfaisants. — Training works and open canals. P artia lly success­ful.

Opérations de dragage couronnées de succès. — Dredging successful.

Dragages e t ouvrages de régularisation. Digues longitudinales, épis e t jetées. R ésu lta ts assez sa tisfaisants. — Dredging and training works, longitudinal an d spur dikes and jetties. P artia lly successful.

— 148 —

Tableau 5. — P r o f o n d e u r d e s e a u x . Table 5 . — D e p t h o f W ater

Section Ratisbonne-Passau. — Sector Ratisbon-Passau.Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

AnnéeYear

21 et plus

21 and more

De-From20

à-to20%

® O

£cy -m

De-From18

à-to18%

lie-From17

à-to17%

De-From16

à-to16%

De-From15

à-to15%

De-From14

à-to14%

De-From13

à-to13%

De-From12

à-to1?%

De-From11

à-to11%

De-From10

à-to10%

De-From9

9%

De-From8

à-to8%

De-From7

à-to7%

De-From6

à-to6%

N ombre"de"jouN nées navigables

Shipping season (days)

1911 X l i 131 3 5 10 12 18 18 41 31 24 5 2981915 l l i 219 15 8 15 16 15 11 6 1 3061916 l l i 309 18 21 6 12 3661917 148 20 22 15 24 47 9 19 2 3061918 54 15 26 40 37 45 47 42 18 7 3311919 190 10 10 12 6 10 11 42 25 7 3231920 130 10 39 37 15 18 36 5 3 9 13 5 3201921 21 5 8 ■ 11 24 28 27 33 16 54 41 28 36 28 5 3651922 270 3 10 13 11 11 3 2 6 3291923 191 9 13 23 15 17 27 14 8 11 18 14 5 3651924 203 2 4 7 19 21 21 4 2 12 7 302

Tableau G. P r o f o n d e u r d e s e a u x . Table G. — D e p t h of W ater.

Section Passau-Linz. — Sector Passau-Linz. Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

AnnéeY ear

21 et plus

21 and more

De-From20

à-to20%

De-From19

à-to19%

De-From18

à-to18%

De-From17

à-to17%

De-From16

à-to16%

De-From15

à-to15%

De-From14

à-to14 %

De-From 13

à-to 13 %

De-From12

à-to12%

De-From11

à-to11%

De-From10

à-to10%

De-From9

à-to9%

De-From8

8%

De-From7

à-to7%

lle-From6

à-to6%

Nombre de jour­nées navigables

Shipping season (days)

1911 l l l | 134 23 16 24 29 30 31 2 9 2981915 1 1 l i 239 4 8 15 15 18 5 2 3061916 1 1 l 304 15 16 17 10 3 1 3661917 149 21 28 12 13 20 16 22 16 5 4 3061918 99 7 25 11 19 22 36 25 22 32 19 8 6 3311919 162 12 21 22 17 9 11 29 10 24 6 3231920 216 6 16 26 13 12 4 3 1 5 6 13 7 38 3661921 74 8 17 23 21 26 8 20 18 21 44 15 30 38 2 3651922 284 8 13 12 1 4 1 3 3 3291923 232 20 24 32 30 15 12 3651924 206 2 7 4 9 35 17 9 2 3 6 2 302

Tableau 7. P r o f o n d e u r d e s e a u x .

Section Linz-Vienne.

Table 7 . — D e p t h o f W ater.

Sector Linz-Vienna.Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

AnnéeYear

21 e t plus

21 and more

De-From20

à-to20%

De-From19

à-to19%

De-From18

à-to18%

De-From 17

à-to 17 %

De-From16

à-to16%

De-From15

à-to15%

De-From14

à-to14%

De-From13

à-to13%

De-From12

à-to12%

De-From11

à-to11%

De-From10

à-to10%

)e-From9

à-to9%

De-From8

à-to8%

De-From7

à-to7%

De-From6

à-to6%

Nombre de jour­nées navigables

Shipping season (days)

1911 1 l l 154 26 17 29 36 19 17 2981915 1 l l 241 10 4 23 18 7 3 3061916 l l l 343 7 9 7 3661917 225 i l 8 12 18 21 6 1 4 3061918 167 5 24 26 21 41 21 8 13 5 3311919 240 3 7 14 11 11 13 19 1 3 i 3231920 261 12 8 6 4 7 3 1 11 16 17 20 3661921 103 14 24 31 37 38 34 31 21 15 5 10 2 3651922 302 7 9 2 3 3 1 1 1 3291923 229 16 33 29 23 17 8 8 2 3651924 216 1 2 3 9 30 14 10 6 4 4 3 302

Renseignements fournis par la D. D. S. G. et vérifiés par la M. F. T. R. From data furnished b y D.D.S.G. and checked b y M.F.T.R.

Indique 18 décim ètres ou plus. — Indicates 18 or m ore decimeters.

— 149 —

Tableau 8. — P rofondeur d es e a u x . Table 8. — D epth of W ater

Section Vienne-Gonyu. — Sector Vienna-Gônyu.Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

21 et De-From De-From 1 De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From le-From le-From Nombre de jo u r ­Année plus 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 nées navigables

Year 21 and à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to Shipping seasonmore 20% 19% 18% 17% 163/4 15y* 143/4 13 3/4 123/4 11 % 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% (days)

1911 l l l 142 24 3 5 36 3 9 17 5 2981915 l l 1 245 29 23 23 9 3061916 l l l 361 5 3661917 194 30 26 22 15 5 6 6 2 3061918 134 24 38 38 29 3 7 19 10 2 3311919 223 11 13 19 16 21 9 11 3231920 244 11 24 6 4 12 5 11 28 1 2 9 3661921 144 11 20 33 55 26 24 17 16 16 3 3651922 296 7 9 12 3 2 3291923 204 15 29 31 25 28 12 8 13 3651924 196 4 3 6 8 30 21 6 13 12 2 1 302

Tableau 9. — P rofondeur des e a u x . Table 9. — D epth of W ater ,

Section Gônyu-Budapest. — Sector Gônyu-Budapest.Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

21 et De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From )e-From De-From De-FromDe-From Nombre de jour­Année plus 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 nées navigablesYear 21 and à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to Shipping season

more 203/4 1934 18% 17% 163/4 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% 93/4 8% 7% 63/4 (days)

1911 1 1 1 235 10 17 22 14 2981915 1 1 1 306 3061916 1 1 1 366 3661917 253 7 7 8 9 3 4 11 4 3061918 271 16 14 10 19 1 3311919 282 8 13 12 8 3231920 317 3 5 2 25 11 3 3661921 243 6 16 17 22 13 27 10 6 5 3651922 329 3291923 326 9 14 12 4 3651924 256 14 5 6 6 4 6 1 4 302

Tableau 10. — P rofondeur des e a u x . Table 10. — D epth of W a t e r .

Section Budapest-Moldovci. ■— Sector Budapest-Moldova. Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

21 et De-From De-From De-Free De-Frm De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-From De-FromDe-FromDe-From)e-FromNombre de jour­Année plus 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 nées navigablesYear 21 and à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to à-to Shipping season

more 20% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% (days)

1911 1 1 1 265 16 8 4 5 2981915 1 1 1 306 3061916 1 1 1 366 3661917 265 9 9 6 7 5 4 "1 3061918 266 13 9 23 11 2 2 2 3 3311919 Les relevés m anquen t. — No record.

3661920 307 2 7 27 12 10 11921 315 1 6 14 17 12 3651922 326 1 1 1 3291923 312 2 5 8 4 21 13 3651924 247 10 13 10 8 9 5 302

Renseignements fournis par la D.D.S.G. et vérifiés par la M.F.T.R. From data furnished b y D.D.S.G. and checked by M.F.T.R.

1 Indique 18 décim ètres et plus. — Indicates 18 or more decimeters.

— 150 —

Tableau 11. — T ir a n t d ’e a u a u t o r is é d e s Ch a l a n d s .

Table 11. — P e r m it t e d D r a u g h t o f t h e B a r g e s .

Secteur Moldova - Turnu-Severin. —- Sector Moldova - Turnu-Severin.

Dimensions en décimètres. — Measurements in Decimeters.

A nnée

Y e a r

21 e t p lu s 21 a n d m ore

De-From20

à-to

2 0 - / .

De-From

19à -to

193/i

De-From18

à-to

1 8 ’/.

De-From17

à - to

1 7 ’ /,

De-From

16à -to

1 6 » /,

De-From 15

-à -to

15 »/.

De-From14

à - to

14*/.

De-From13

à -to

1 3 '/ .

De-From12

à -to12»/.

De-From11

à - to

h */.

De-From10

à - to

1 0 » /.

De-From9

à-to

9*/*

De-From8

à-to

8 » / .

De-From7

à -to

7»/.

De-From 6

à - to

6 »/.

Nombre de journées navigablesShippingseason(days)

1911 l l l 224 12 9 13 23 5 3 6 3 2981915 l 1 l 306 3061916 l 1 1 366 3661917 221 4 12 14 21 7 4 7 3 3 6 4 3061918 302 16 4 6 3 3311919 Les relevés manquent. — No record.1920 299 4 5 8 7 2 8 2 12 4 5 8 2 3661921 203 16 7 8 7 10 11 21 11 9 21 10 • 4 8 8 11 3651922 306 7 6 10 3291923 294 5 11 6 15 9 10 6 5 4 3651924 253 3 8 15 4 7 9 2 1 302

Renseignements fournis par la D.D.S.G. et vérifiés par la M.F.T.R. From data furnished by D.D.S.G. and checked by M.F.T.R.

1 Ind ique 18 décim ètres ou plus. — T he sta tis tics show only 18 decimeters an d more.

Table 12. — D e p t h o f W a t e r .

Sector B ra ila - Turnu-Severin.

Year M inimum navigable d ep th In m eters No of days D ates Kilometers

1910 more than 2 .0 01911 1 .8 0 1 22 September 710-7141911 1 .9 0 8 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1 ,1 2 August 641-642

24, 25 September 710-7145, 6, 13, 14, 15 Aug. 641-642

1911 2 .0 0 16 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 September 451-45416, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 September 710-71421 November 410-412

1912 more than 2 .0 01913 2 .0 0 3 13, 14, 15 November 610-6111914 more than 2 .0 01915 more than 2 .0 019161917 Depths n ot recorded during war.19181920 1 .4 0 4 22, 23, 24, 25 November 459-461

1920 1 .50 8 19, 20, 21 November 459-461

12, 13, 14, 15, 16 December 25810, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 November 459-461

— 151 —

Table 12. — D e p t h o f W a t e r ( continued) .

Sector B raila- Turnu-Severin.

YearMinumum navigable

dep th in m etres No of days Dates K ilom eters

1920 1 .60 17 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 December 25817, 18, 19 December 7168, 9 Novem ber 339-341

1920 1 .70 8 12, 13 November 459-46130 November, 1, 2, 3 December 2586, 7 Novem ber 339-341

1920 1 .8 0 7 11 November 459-16126, 27, 28, 29 November 258

1920 1 .9 0 2 4, 5 November 339-341

1921 1 .5 0 1 8 November 71611 October 92830, 31 October, 1, 6, 7, November 716

1921 1 .6 0 7 31 October, 1 November 637-64023 November 275-2765, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 October 92828, 29 October, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ,18 ,

19, 20 November 637-64028, 29 October 560

1921 1 .70 24 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 1 1 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 5 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 November 5692, 3, 4, 5 November 7169 November 463-46413, 14, 15, 16, 17 November 459-4613, 4 October 92821, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 October 560

1921 1 .8 0 11 27 October, 21, 22 November 637-64021, 22 November 463-46421, 22 November 56929, 30, 31 August, 1 September 463-46426, 27, 28, 29, 30 September, 1, 2 October 928

1921 1 .9 0 14 30 September, 1, 2, October 334-33912, 13 October 637-64024 November 275-2767, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19 September 334-33924, 25 September 928

1921 2 .0 0 14 14, 15, 1 6 ,1 7 , 18, 19, 20 October 637-64016, 17, 18, 19 October 463-46420 October 560

1922 more than 2 .0 0

1923 1 .9 0 5 9 September 459-46123, 24 September 722-7255, 6 October 716-717

1923 2 .0 0 14 7 September 338-34113, 14, 15 September 459-46122 September, 4 October 722-7257, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 October 716-717

1924 more than 2 .0 0

Data furnished b y Roumanian Government.

— 152 —

T able 13. — D e p t h s o f W a t e r .

B ra ila - Tchatal St. George.

Y ear

D ep th ol less th an

Between T chata l St. George’s an d T chatal d ’Ismail

D ays

24 feet (English)

Between B raila an d T chatal d*Ismail D ays

R em arks

1910 No particulars given in the protocol.

1911 41 m. below 22 ft. during 10 days

39 m. below 22 ft. during 11days

83 y2 M. Zeglina, depth less than 22 ft. for 21 days

The particulars regarding the depths unsuitable for navigation between Braila and Tchatal St. George’s have been taken from the protocols of the C.E.D.

1912 Satisfactory depths 8 3 14 M. Zeglina, depth less than 24 ft. for 18 days

1913 Satisfactory depths Satisfactory depths (Reports of the resident engineers)

1914 Dredges were operating at Zeglina for 23 days

1915

1916No protocols printed on

account of the war

1917

1918

1919

1920 39 m. During few days depth of 20 y2 ft.

Zeglina : In July, August and October minimum depth was respectively 20, 21 and 22 V4 ft.

1921 39-40 and 41 m. Depth of less than 24 ft. during August and September.

Zeglina : Least depth 21 ft. during August and Sep­tember

1922 Satisfactory depths Zeglina : During few days depth of less than 24 ft.

1923 41 m. Depth 22 ft. during a few days

Zeglina : During a few days depth of less than 24 ft.

1924 Satisfactory depths Satisfactory depths

D ata furnished by C. E. D.

Tableau 14 . — P r o f o n d e u r d e s E a u x .

Table 1 4 . — D e p t h o f W a t e r .

Bras de Sulina. — Sulina Arm.Dimensions en pieds anglais. — Measurements in English Feet.

MoisM onth 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 Mois

Month

Janvier January

FévrierNavigation du fleuve interrompue par suite des glaces.

River generally ice-bound. February

Mars 24' 3" 23' 0" 22' 6" 20' 9" 23' 6" 24' 0" 21' 0" _1 __2 20' 0" 24' 0" 21 ' 3 " 23' 0" 24 ' 6 " 25' 0" March

Avril 23' 3" 23' 6" 23' 3" 22' 9" 23' 0" 24 ' 0 " 23 ' 6 " _1 22' 0" 20' 0" 24' 6" 20' 9" 24' 6" 25' 6" 25' 0" April

Mai 23' 3" 23' 0" 22' 6" 23' 9" 21' 6" 24' 6" 24' 6" _1 23' 0" 20' 6" 25' 3" 22' 0" 25' 0" 23' 0" 23' 6" May

Juin 23' 6" 22' 9" 22' 6" 23' 6" 22 ' 6 " 24' 6" 24 ' 6 " _1 22' 0" 20' 6" 25' 0" 24' 0" 24' 6" 24' 6" 22' 9" June

Juillet 21' 0" 22' 0" 23' 6" 22' 9" 22 ' 0 " 25' 0" 24 ' 6 " _1 23' 0" 22' 0" 24' 3" 23' 6" 24' 6" 25 ' 6 " 24' 0" July

Août 19' 0" 22' 3" 24' 6" 23' 0" 23' 0" 25 ' 0 " 21 ' 6 " 21' 0" 23' 6" 22' 0" 23' 6" 23' 0" 23' 6" 23' 0" 24 ' 0 " August

Septembre 22' 6" 22' 0" 24 ' 3 " 23' 0" 23' 0" 24 ' 0 " 21' 6" 20' 0" 23' 0" 22' 6" 22' 3" 23' 0" 23' 3" 24' 0" 24' 0" September

Octobre 22' 9" 21' 9" 23' 6" 21' 0" 23 ' 0 " 23' 0" 19' 6" 20' 0" 22' 6" 22' 0" 20' 9" 22' 3" 24' 0" 23' 6" 22' 6" October

Novembre 22' 9" 21' 9" 20 ' 0 " 22' 3" 23' 3" 24' 0" 20' 0" 20 ' 0 " 22' 6" 21' 0" 21' 3" 22' 9" 25' 0" 24' 0" 22' 0" November

Décembre 23 ' 3 " 22 ' 3 " 20' 9" 22' 6" 23' 0" 23' 0" — 1 21' 6" 22' 6" 21' 0" 21' 6" 23' 0" 22' 0" 25' 0" 22' 6" December

1 Aucun sondage n ’a été effectué pendan t la guerre. — No soundings during the war.2 Les sondages ne sont pas indiqués dans les dossiers de la C. E . D. — Soundings n o t in G. E . D. files.

Renseignem ents fournis p ar la C. E . D. — D ata furnished by C. E . D.

Tableau 15. — P r o f o n d e u r d e s E a u x .

Table 15. — D e p t h o f W a t e r .

Entrée de Sulina. — Sulina Entrance.

Nombre de journées pendant lesquelles les profondeurs indiquées ont été atteintes. Number of days depths indicated were available.

Dimensions en pieds. — Measurements in feet.

AnnéeYear 24 23% 23 22% 22 21 y, 2i % 21 20 %20% 20 19% 19 18% 18 17% 17 16% 16 15% 15 13

1910 363 _ 1

1911 361 — 4

1912 302 3 50 5 5 — — 1 —

1913 339 — 20 — 6 — — — —

1914 359 — 3 — 3 — — — —

1915 31 — 37 139 145 — — 13 —

1916 — — 31 — 41 — — 39 186 — 69 —

1917 — — — . — 56 — 57 71 — — 122 — 4 — --- 24 8 8 — 15 —

1918 — — — 124 35 39 94 23 — 50 42 joursdays 20'

1919 — — 40 42 52 — — 110 37 — 84 — — — — — — — — — — 13 » to o >

1920 — — — _ — 90 _ 45 5 188 38 10 » 21' P e n d a n t les­quels la glace a

I 8 » 23' interrom pu la1921 83 70 52 8 38 100 10 4 2 » 21' nav igat ion .

8 » 22%'I 2 » 22' W h ilst nav iga ­

tion on the1922 — 18 59 141 18 28 6 48 18 21 8 I 43 » 22' river was

1 23 ’ » 20' stopped on

1923 24 17 73 — 68 — — — 16 — 71 21 18 — 24 — 31 — — — — account of ice.

1924 — — — — 76 — — — — — 69 47 51 87 — — 7 — 11 — — 181 67 » 22'

1 13 pieds dans le chenal officiel pendan t 18 jours après quoi il a été défin itivem ent décidé d 'abandonner ce chenal e t d ’utiliser le chenal provisoire du nord don t la profondeur est de 19 pieds. — 13 feet in official channel during 18 days before it was finally decided to abandon it in favour of the provisional no rth channelw i t h a d e p t h o f 19 fe e t .

R e n s e i g n e m e n t s f o u r n i s p a r l a C. E . D . — D a t a f u r n i s h e d b y C. E . D .

t

— 155 —

Table 16.

T a b l e s h o w i n g w h e n t h e R i v e r w a s f r o z e n o v e r : 1836-1924.

[Table in original text only.]

Table 17.

F a i r w a y i n t h e A u s t r i a n D a n u b e i n t h e Y e a r 1923.

[Table in original tex t only.]

Table 18.

F a i r w a y i n t h e A u s t r i a n D a n u b e i n t h e Y e a r 1924.

[Table in original tex t only.]

— 156 —

3g

P$ 5à *ÇiK

X .

a < V)s

Table 19.

Approximate Profile of

the DanubeI *| 5Uj Çfvo S X

^ !<3iO V)

Tableau 20. — I n sta ll a t io n s d e p o r t s . Table 20. — P o r t F a c il it ie s .

Allemagne. — Germany.

Nombre

Number

P o rt

P o rt

Lon­gueur

desquais

enmètres*Quays,meters

Voies de garage en mètres* R . R.

Sidings, meters

Superficie des m agasins en m*

Warehouses : Floor space, sq. meters

Nombre des

pontons d ’em bar­quement Number

of loading pontoons

Outillage m écanique N ombre

Mechanical equipm ent. N um ber

1 R atisbonne . . . . R a t i s b o n ...........

4,800 oui.— ves 11,550 20 grues fixes sur les quais (1,5 à 23 t.) .— 20 shore cranes, 1.5 to 2 3 1.

2 Deggendorf . . . . 600 oui.— yes 2 magasins — Warehouses. 3 grues fixes sur les quais. — 3 shore cranes

3 P a s s a u ................ 1.439 oui.— yes 8,795 3 chèvres. — 3 derricks, 1.5 T.3 élévateurs. — 3 elevators.5 grues fixes sur les quais (2 à 4 t . )

5 shore cranes, 2 to 4 t.3 grues flo ttantes (4 t.) — 3 F loating

cranes 4 t .20 grues fixes sur les quais (1.5 à 23 t.). — 20 shore cranes, 1.5 to

23 t.

Tableau 21 . — I n st a l l a t io n s d e p o r t . Table 21 . — P ort F a c il it ie s .

Autriche. ■— Austria.

1 Engelhartzsell . . . 290 1 magasin. — warehouse2 N iederranna . . . . 130 13 W e s e n u fe r ........... 110 1 » » 14 Oberm uhl ........... 160 1 15 N e u h a u s ................ 100 1 16 Aschach ................ 270 17 B r a n d s t a t t ........... 80 1 » 18 Linz ....................... 3,933 oui. — y es 6,367 6 4 grues (1.5 t . ) .— 4 cranes, 1.5 tons.

3 élévateurs de sacs. — 3 sackelevators.

1 convoyeur à courroie. — 1 beltconveyor.

2 grues. — 2 cranes.9 W ilh erin g .............. 80 1 magasin. — warehouse 1

10 M authhausen . . . 485 111 Wallsee ................ 500 1 112 Grein .................... 402 1 113 Y b b s ....................... 1,100 114 M arbach................ 130 115 Pochlarn ............. 950 2 » » 116 W e ite n e g g ........... 350 1 117 M e lk ....................... 80 2 » e18 Aggsbachdorf . . . 80 1 119 S p i t z ....................... 1,250 1 120 Weissenkirchen . . 80 1 121 D urnstein ........... 80 122 S te in ....................... 685 2 » »23 K o m e u b e rg ......... 800 oui. — y es 3 » » 1 crane24 N ussdorf................ 216 125 Vienne — Vienna 20,217 oui. — yes 1 grue flo ttante . — 1 floating crane.

6 élévateurs de grain 1. — 6 grain ele­vators 1.

1 élévateur de sacs. — 1 sack elevator.23 grues de types divers de 1,5 tonnes

à 20 tonnes. — 23 cranes of varioussorts from 1.5 tons to 20 tons.

1 wagonnet à bascule. — 1 car-tipple.

2 lessiveuses à charbon. — 2 coal-w ading bridges.

26 H a in b u r g .............. 365 1 magasin. — warehouse 1

N o t e . — E xception faite de Vienne, Linz, Kornenberg, il s’agit en général de débarcadères aménagés sur une faible longueur de quais.

N o t e . — W ith the exception of Vienna, Linz, Kornenberg, most of the above are merely landing-places w ith a short s tre tchof quay.

1 Ces renseignements sont donnés par 1r D. R. C. D ’après les chiffres fournis par les compagnies de navigation, il existe 40 grues et autres appareils analogues et qua tre quais de garage.

1 This inform ation is supplied by the D anube Regulation Commission. According to figures supplied by the shipping com­panies, there are 40 cranes and other similar mechanical appliances and four sliding platforms.

— 158 — *

Tableau 22. — I n s t a l l a t io n s d e P o r t . — T c h é c o s l o v a q u ie .

Table 22. — P o r t F a c i l i t i e s . — Cz e c h o s l o v a k ia .

Nombre P o rt

L o n ­gueur

des quais en

Voies de garage en m ètres

Superficie des m agasins en m*

Nombredes

pontonsd ’em bar­

Outillage m écanique Nom bre

N um ber P o rt m ètresQuays,

R . R. Sidings, m eters

W arehouses : Floor space, sq. m eters

quem ent N um ber

of loadingMechanical equipm ent.

N umbermeters pontoons

1 D e v in .................... 300 12 grues sur p on t rou lan t, force :

2-5.000 kg. — 2 bridge cranes 2-5,000 kg. capacity .

7 grues à arceau. Force : 2-4 tonnes.— 7 portal cranes : 2-4 tons.

1 élévateur de irrains. Type Foulton.— 1 F oulton grain elevator.

B ratislava ........... 5,850 oui. — yes 23,150 11 2 élévateurs électriques de 2,5 tonnes.11 m agasins. — warehouses — 2 electric elevators of 2.5 tons.

1 élévateur électrique de 5 tonnes. — 1 electric elevator of 5 tons.

1 élévateur de sacs. — 1 sack ele­vator.

1 élévateur à godets. — 1 bucket elevator.

1 glissière à sac. — 1 sack slide.3 K o r tv e ly e s ........... 150 1 magasin. — warehouse4 B o s ......................... 203 1 » «

K o lo sn e m a ........... 1,300 16 K o m o r n o .............. 2,300 oui. — yes 2.221 5 1 grue f lo ttan te . Force 10 tonnes. —

3 m agasins. — warehouses 1 floating crane, 10 tons capacity.E n trep ô t franc des do u a ­

nes. 3.400 m*Customs free storage, 3,400

sq. m eters7 K am enice ........... 600 oui. — yes8 P ark an .................. 300 2 magasins. — warehouses

Tableau 23. — I n s t a l l a t io n s d e P o r t . — H o n g r i e .

Table 23. —- P o r t F a c i l i t i e s . — H u n g a r y .

1 G ônyü ..................... 400 1 magasin. - - warehouse 12 Jo m aro m -U jia ro s. 1,000 oui. — yes 2 1 élévateur — 1 elevator.3 D una Almas . . . . so oui. — yes 14 Nygeres-ujfalu . . . 180 oui. — yes 1 » 15 E st ergo m .............. 268 2 16 V a c z ....................... 400 2 27 S z e n te n d re ............ 120 18 B udapest 1 ............ 21,500 31,250 7 grues mobiles. — 7 travelling cranes,

2 élévateurs de grains. — 2 grain elevators.

9 B u d a fo k ................ 200 oui. — yes 210 E r e s i ....................... 120 211 Adony .................. 200 oui. — yes 112 D unapen tile . . . . 225 1 113 D u n a v e c s e ............ 200 1 » 114 D u nafo ldvar ......... 600 1 115 H a r t a ..................... 80 1 » 116 Ordas ..................... 120 2 317 P a k s ....................... 400 3 218 Kaloesa ................ 200 2 219 F ad d T o ln a ......... 150 320 B a g a ....................... 900 oui. — yes 5 » 421 M o h a c s .................. 600 2 5

1 E n construction : quai vertical, 600 m. de longueur, 3.200 m* de m agasins. 6 grues électriques de 3 à 1,5 tonnes desservies par routes e t voies ferrées.

2 R enseignem ents fournis p a r le Ministère de V A griculture hongrois. — D ’après les renseignem ents ém anant des principales com­pagnies de nav igation , il existe 16 grues de types différents.

3 La gare de chemins de fer est située au-dessus du port et reliée à la mine de la D. D. S. G. de Paks.

1 Now under construction — vertical quai 600 m. long, 3,200 sq. m. of warehouse. 6 electric cranes from 3 to 1.5 tons to be served bv b o th roadw ay and railroad.

* Inform ation furnished by H ungarian M inistry of Agriculture. According to inform ation received from principal shipping companies there are 16 cranes of various kinds.

3 R ailw ay sta tion is above th e port an d is connected w ith D. D . S. G. mine a t Pak«.

T a b le a u 2-4 . I n s t a l l a t i o n s d e p o r t . — - T a b le . P o r t F a c i l i t i e s . R o y a u m e S . H . S . — S . H . S . State.

Norn-Superficie ............ 1

OO Longueur des Voies de garage en m ètres R .R Sidings, meters

tics m aga­ Nom bre des pontons Outillage mécanique 1breNum- quais en mètres

Quays, m eterssins en m2 Warehouse

d ’em barquem ent N um ber of loading

Nombre Mechanical E qu ipm en t.

ObservationsRem arks

ber floor space, sq. meters

pontoons N um ber

1 Bosdan .......... oui. — yes 2 Canal de jonction avec Novisad. — Canal con­

2 Vukovar . . . . 1,500 oui. — yes 400 Plusieurs. — Several necting with3 B e e c s in .......... oui. — yes 1 Novisad.4 Novisad . . . . 1,500 oui. — yes 200 Plusieurs. — Several Canal de jonction

avec Bezdan.5 Zamun .......... oui. — yes oui. — yes Plusieurs. — Several — Canal con­

necting with < Bezdan.

6 Belgrade . . . . 8,000 oui. — yes 8,000 » » 3 grues Belgrade-Save — 3 cranes Belgrade Save.

7 Panesovo . . . 5,000 oui. — yes 200 '> » 1 grue Belgrade-Da-8 Smederevo . . oui. — yes oui. — yes » » nube. — 1 crane9 Dubrociva . . Voie étroite. — Narrow gauge 1 Belgrade-Danube

10 Kostolae . . . Chemin de fer industriel.— Industrial railway

1

11 V. Gradiste. . oui. — yes » » 112 D. Milanovae » » 113 Prehovo . . . . oui. — ves 114 O se lc .............. oui. — y e s oui. — yes

Voie étroite.— Narrow gauge1

15 B e l i s t j o ......... 116 Sostilovae . . » » 117 Titel .............. Chemin de fer en construc­

tion. — Railway in con­struction

1

18 Steri B oco j . . 1 Canal. Gare de che­mins de fer à quelque distan­ce du port. — Canal. Railway station at some distance from port.

O b s e r v a t i o n . —- Il existe, clans cet Etat, 51 débarcadères ; la liste ci-dessus indique seulement ceux qui servent à un transport annuel de marchandises supérieur à 25.000 tonnes. Ils sont classés par ordre d’importance. Les données disponibles sur ces ports sont très rares, mais les espaces laissés en blanc sur le tableau ne signifient pas que l’outillage en question soit inexistant. On peut toutefois déclarer que les ports S. H. S . sont rarement pourvus de tous les perfectionnements d’outillage moderne.

N o t e . ■— There are some 51 landing-places in S. H. S. State, of which only those with an annual traffic of over 25,000 tons are listed above. They are arranged in the order of their importance. The data available for these ports are very meagre and the blank spaces do not mean an absence of the facility in question. It can be said, however, that S. H. S. ports have extremely few modern improvements.

Tableau 25. — Installations d e P ort.

Tabic 25. — P ort F acilities.

Bulgarie. — Bulgaria.

Plateformes d ’em ­Nombre des

pontons (rem b ar ­quem ent

Longueur des quais en mètres

Longueur enbarquem ent e t de débarquem ent le Voies de garage Superficie des

Nombre P o rt mètres des routes longeant les quais

long des berges en mètres*

en mètres magasins en m ! Outillage mécanique. Nom bre

N um ber P o rtR oads along quay, m eters

P latfo rm s used R .R . Sidings, W arehouse floor N um ber of Mechanical equipm ent. N um berQuays, meters for loading and

unloading alongmeters space, sq. m eters loading

pontoonsbank, sq. meters

1 Vidin .......... 800 1,000 10,000 oui. — yes 900 22 Lorn.............. 1,000 1,200 5,655 oui. — yes 1,996 4 1 grue à main. — 1 hand

crane.3 Orehovo . . . non. — no 24 Som ovit . . . 200 oui. — yes 25 Nicopol . . . 200 non. — no 16 S i s t o v .......... 800 1,000 13,650 oui. — yes 1,054 27 R ustchuk . . 2,500 2,000 21,800 oui. — yes 5,450 4 1 grue fixe à quai 1-10 T.

1-10 t . shore crane.1 grue à main, 1-15 t. —

1-15 t. hand crane.

Tableau 2 6 . — I n s t a l l a t i o n s d e P o r t .

Table 2G. — P o r t F a c i l i t i e s .

Roumanie. — Roumania.

I I 0 1

Portl o n g u e u r d e s q u a i s

des berges pour rembar­quement el le (léliiirqiiement des marchan­dises. Mètres

P l a t e f o r m e s d ’e m b a r ­

q u e m e n t e t d e d é b a r ­

q u e m e n t le lo n g d e s

b e r g e s M*

V o ies do g a r a g e en

m è t r e s

S u p e r f ic . d e s

m a g a ­s in s e n

m è t r e s 2

Nombre des pontons

d'embar­quement.

écan

. N

om

bre

equ

ip.

Nu

mb

er

O b s e r v a t i o n s

Port Q u a y s , Hank arranged (or landing, loading and unloading of

vessels,meters

P l a t f o r m s R . R . W a r e - Number of E â R e m a r k sm e te r s u s e d fo r

lo a d in g a n d u n lo a d in g

a l o n g b a n k , s q . m e te r s

S id in g s ,m e te r s

h o u s e f lo o r

s p a c e , sq . m e te r s

loadingpontoons

4) O

! |

o è

1 B a z ia s ........................................ 800 6,000 2,300 i _2 M oldova-V eche..................... — 100 3,000 — i —3 D r e n c o v a ................................. 170 50 750 — — i —4 Orsnva I Orsova-Ville -----

Ursova | orsova-Coroana. .730 _____ 500 — 72 2 —670 20,000 2,000 1,690 1 2 1 grue de 3 tonnes en service, 1 grue de

1 % tonne en construction. Dépôt de charbon M.F.T.R., 3,625 m2. Dépôt de charbon M.F.T.R., 3.780 m2. — 1 crane of 3 tons functioning, 1 crane of 1 % ton in course of construction. M. F. T. R. Coal Depot, 3,625 sq. meters. M.F.T.R.Coal Depot, 3,780 sq. meters.

5 T urnu-Sevcrin ........................ 560 __ 10,000 500 1,280 1 —

6 Gruia ........................................ 33 400 26,000 ____ 66 1 —

7 C e ta te a ...................................... 800 ____ 40,480 — 160 1 —

8 C a la f a t ...................................... 825 — 32,480 3,000 427 1 —

9 Bistrctz ................................... 33 700 30,400 ____ ------- 1 —

10 Bechet ...................................... 650 ____ 46,410 ____ ------- 1 —

11 Corabia ................................... 1,135 500 81,400 5,000 1,215 1 —

12 Turnu Magurele ................... 940 — 61,500 4,000 1,920 1 —

13 Zimnicca................................... 118 1,000 79,000 500 140 1 —

14 Giurgiu :R a m a d a n ............................ 2,041 — 128,000 7,600 2,040 3 2 1 de 2 tonnes en service ; 1 de 2 tonnes en

Sf.-Gheorghe ...................réparation. — 1 of 2 tons functioning : 1 of

1,120636

3001,500

74.00071.000

3,6006,000

2 tons in course of reparation.15 Oltenita ................................... 780 3 ____

16 T u rtu ca ia ................................. — 550 27,500 _____ 1 —17 S i l i s t r a ...................................... — 700 23,000 — 144 2 — Magasins de 116 m2 en construction. —

Warehouse 116 sq. m. in course of con­struction.

Tableau 26. — I n s t a l la t io n s d e P o r t (suite).

Table 26. — P o r t F a c i l i t i e s ( continued) .

Roumanie. — Roumania.

1 1 s i

P o rtlongueur des quais

en m.

Aménagement des berges

pour r e m b ar ­quement e t le débarquement des marchan­dises. Mètres

Plateform es d 'em b ar­

quem ent e t de débar­

quem ent le long des berges M*

Voies de garage en

m ètres

Superfic. des

m aga­sins en m ètres 1

Nombre des pontons

d 'embar­quement.

■Q Aa aO 3z zCl l O bservations

O 3z z

P o rt Quays,m eters

Bank arranged for landing, loading and unloading of

vessels,meters

Platform s used for

loading an d unloading

along bank, sq. m eters

R .R .Sidings,m eters

W are­house floor

space, sq. m eters

Number of loading

pontoons

s -a<V oS 's 5 1a

O 2

R em arks

18 Calarasi .................................... 520 300 44,000 1,450 270 i19 Ostrov ...................................... — 770 30,000 — 100 i —20 O lt in a ......................................... 34 290 22,000 — 150 i —21 Cernavoda ............................... 180 380 32,500 2,400 430 i ___

22 H a r s o v a .................................... 600 30 25,600 — 400 i —

23 Cura-Ialomitei ...................... — 550 60,000 — — i24 Braila (en dehors des docks

— outside the docks) . . . 2,300 1,850 360,000 13,300 1,576 15•

Outre les 1.576 m 2 de magasins d’Etat, il existe en dehors du port 70,850 m2 d'entre­pôts spéciaux pour les céréales. — In addi­tion to 1,576 sq. m. of warehouses belonging to the State, there are 70,850 sq. m. outside

25 M a c in ......................................... 33the port of special warehouses for grain.

— 5,760 — — 1 —26 Galatz :

Le Port situé en dehors des Docks. — The Port ou t ­side the d o c k s ................. 2,100 1,000 60,000 3,700 4,400 15 —

Nouveau bassin. — NewBasin ............................... 1,260 1,470 295,000 6,420 — —

27 R e n i ........................................... 480 825 31,000 960 4,850 128 Isaccea ...................................... 60 40 1,200 •— — 1 —

29 Tulcea ...................................... 1,000 — 23,000 — — 2 —30 I s m a i l ......................................... 475 — 12,000 — 1,000 2 —

31 C h il ia -N o u a ............................. 170 250 5,000 — 1,500 1 —32 Chilia-Veche .......................... 60 30 ___ ___ ___ 1 ___33 V alcov ..................................................... 60 ___ __ ___ — 134 C o m m iss io n E u r o p é e n n e du

D a n u b e . — E u r o p e a n| D a n u b e C o m m iss io n . . . . 5 Vi m ille s m a r in s . — n a u t ic a l m ile s . 1 petite grue — small crane. /

— 163 —

Annex VI.

CUSTOMS, POLICE, ETC. DUES.

Germany.

Customs fees : Outside hours 1.20 marks per hour per man (two men generally).

Austria.

1. Overtime" fees :

Per Customs official per h o u r ................... 6,000 crowns (daytime)” ” » » » ................. 9,000 » (night-time)» » watch » » ................. 5,400 |» (daytime)8 ” ” » » ................. 8,100 » (night-time)

2. Exam ination outside Customs zone :

Per Customs official ............................................................ 40,500 crowns» » watch 30,500 »

50 per cent ex tra a t night (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.).

3. Personal cost allowances (outside Customs zone in official hours) :

Per Customs official per h o u r ........................................ 20,000 crowns» » » per day 140,000 »» » watch per h o u r ........................................ 15,000 ,»» » » per day 110,000 »

4. Ship convoys :

Fees in accordance with official subsistence allowance regulations,

Czechoslovakia.

No Customs fees.No convoy.

Hungary (applied at each frontier).

I. Customs examination :

(1) For tug alone or with one to three barges . . 80,000 crowns(2) For tug with four or more b a r g e s .................... 160,000 »(3) For rowing-boat, motor-boat or r a f t .................... 80,000 »

I I . Police control :

(1) For tug alone or with one to three barges . . 80,000 crowns(2) [For tug with four or more b a r g e s ........................ 160,000 »(3) R afts pay no fees.

I I I . Veterinary control :

(1) For consignment less than 200 kilos . . . . 50 crowns per kilo(2) For consignment of 200 kilos and more . . . 64,000 »(3) For barge loads ................................................. 193,800 » per barge

— 164

I. Convoy by Customs officials :

For goods steamers :Per sub-official : 81,600 crowns per day (including return railway fare).

For passenger steamers :P er one official and two sub-officials (for all three) per day or pa rt 200,000 c r o w n s For exam ination on shore when river forms fron tier..................... 60,000 »

II. Convoy by river police :(1) Official and two guards (for all three) per day or

p a r t .............................................................................. 120,000 crowns(2) Each fu rther official per day or p a r t ....................... 60,000 »(3) Each further guard per day or p a r t ...................... 30,000 »

(Second official required for passenger steamers where passengers exceed 200, and third official where passengers exceed 600.)

III. For sanitary control :

(1) Issue of bill of h e a l t h ............................................... 50,000 crowns(2) Counter-signature of bill of health ...................... 25,000 »

S. H. S.

Customs examination \

During office hours : No charge.Outside office hours : To the official : 30 dinars ; to the employee and to the agent : 15 dinars. For examinations a t more than two kilometers from the Customs office, the cost of the

journey is paid.For sealing : 10 centimes Swiss (gold) per seal.Convoys : 60 dinars per day, including return journey.

Sanitary Fees 2.

Bill of health, obligatory for each vessel entering S. H. S., 27 jiinars .

PO RT DUES.

The po rt dues were not reported in such detail as were those for Customs examination. In Germany i t is understood th a t a small am ount is charged as port dues, two or three marks per barge.

The information furnished for Austria is incomplete.A t Bratislava i t is reported th a t no charges are made for boats stopping in transit. This

seems to be borne out by an examination of the figures for typical trips. In Budapest the harbour dues are the following :

H a rb o u r dues. P a p e r Crowns.

Self-propelled boats over 50 meters in length .................. 10,000 per day» » 30 to 50 meters in l e n g t h .............................. 8,000 » »» » under 30 meters in length . . . . . . . . 6,000 » »

Cargo boats 30 meters or m o r e ........................................................... 8,000 » »» » less th an 30 m eters in l e n g th ............................................. 4,000 » »

These amounts, though small, appear to be collected whether the boat is in transit or not.

1 In fo rm ation from S. H. S. M inister of Com munications.2 F rom steam ship companies.

— 165 —

In the S. H. S. S tate the dues are as follows :

P o r t Dues. Dr.

Steamers : F irs t and second journeys ................................................... 650 (average)Third and further j o u r n e y s ................................................... 400 »

Barges : F irst and second journeys ..................................................... 600 «Third and further j o u r n e y s .................................................... 250 »

Above is doubled for vessels going into territorial waters.In Roumania a" ta x of % per cent of the value of the cargo exported is levied on each

vessel.In Bulgaria the charges are as follows :

Vessels of 400 t o n s ................................................................. 357.50 leva» » 600 » ................................................................ 450.— »» » 1,000 » 560.50 »

It is understood th a t a reduction of 50 per cent is made for boats flying the Bulgarianflag.

In Hungary, the S. H. S. State, Bulgaria and Roumania small fees appear to be collected, sometimes in the form of stamps on the reports which are required on the arrival and departure of the vessel.

*

— 166 —

Annex VII.

DELAYS AT FRONTIERS.

I t has been difficult to get an accurate sta tem ent as to the exact tim e lost b y the various vessels a t the different frontiers. This has been made all the more so a§ even in the repo rts received which give tim e of arrival and of departure of specific vessels a t the various fro n tie rs i t will be indicated, for example, th a t the boat remained a t the station for two to three hours a lthough the Customs examination will be stated to have taken only one-half to one hour.

Under such circumstances, i t is not possible to decide whether the rem ainder of the time lost is due to waiting for the examination, such causes as purchase of supplies, etc., or to the convenience of the crews.

On the basis of the available data, however, the various shipping companies have supplied inform ation as to w hat they consider to be an average tim e lost a t each frontier. This informa­tion has been consolidated, and appears in the form of a table a t the end of the Annex. From this i t will be seen th a t the tim e lost a t the S. H. S. frontiers is greater than th a t a t any of the others. The H ungarian formalities seem to consume more time than any of the others, with the exception of those a t the S. H. S. frontiers, and are practically as burdensome as the latter.

The following report, m ade b y an official of one of the navigation companies about two years ago, is suggestive of the frontier delays which m ay occur. This report is in the form of a log, viz. :

“ October 27th.

“ 11.30 a.m. — Joined tug A a t Budapest, picked up two lighters (one being in tran s it from Ratisbon) and a tug (not under steam).

“ 1.30 p.m. — Proceeded, weather cloudy, making for dark night, and under circumstances, i.e., towing downstream, low-lying banks, not suitable for night navigation.

“ 6.0 p.m. — Dark, banks obscured, anchored a t Dunapentele. This after hav­ing steamed 63 kilometers in 4 % hours, m aking average speed of 14 kilometers per hour.

“ October 28th.

“ 5.0 a.m. — Proceeded.“ 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. — A t Baja.“ 4.30 p.m. — Arrived Mohacs. Hungarian frontier Customs examination sta­

tion, the frontier between H ungary and Serbia being about 20 kilometers further down stream, there being no sta tion or village. This region is swampy for m any kilometers on either bank of the river.

“ The H ungarian Customs officials were not here to pass the convoy. I think the local agents should have had all arrangements made and so got the convoy away a t daybreak in the m orning if not in the night.

“ October 29th.“ (Sunday) A t Mohacs, no cargo to handle.“ 8.30 a.m. to 10.30. — Hungarian Customs examination.“ 10.30 a.m. — Proceeded.“ 11.15 a.m. — Crossed Hungaro-Serbian frontier.“ 12.0 a.m. — Arrived B atina (Serbian frontier Customs examination station).

No cargo to handle. The Customs offices are situated on the left bank, so we had first to leave our lighters a t the right bank and then go to the left bank for Customs officials ; i t being dinner-time we did not get them until 3 p.m. and their examination extended until a little after 8.30 p.m. It being now too dark to proceed, we remained a t B atina for the night.

— 167

“ This day, on account of Customs examination services, we had only steamed for 1 y2 hours, making 23 kilometers.

“ The Customs officials looked a t everything, even opening cases, also requiring a copy of the manifests (in Serbian), upon each sheet of which stamps had to be affixed. All Serbian officials engaged on the examination, including woman searcher, had to be paid. A Serbian soldier was placed on board and remained until we had left Serbian sphere of influence, namely, th a t pa rt of the river both banks of which belong to Serbia.

“ October 30th.

“ 5.40 a.m. — Proceeded.“ 11.30 a.m. — Vukovar.“ 5.30 p.m. — Arrived Novisad, anchored 2 kilometers above town.“ This day steamed 12 hours, making 167 kilometers, average speed 14 kilometers

per hour.

“ October 31s#.

“ 6.0 a.m. — Proceeded to the Customs pontoon in order to discharge cargo.H ad to lie off until Serbian passenger steamer had called, which i t did a t 9.0 a.m.

“ 10.0 a.m. — Commenced to discharge.“ 11.30 a .m .—- Local agent came aboard ; said Customs official had ordered him

to stop discharging and to let his lighter drop astern in order to allow S. H. S. lighter alongside to discharge about 70 tons cargo. This would have m eant not finishing our discharging this day. W ent ashore, spoke to Customs official (not the one who had given the order) and got permission to finish discharging, which we did.

“ 1.0 p.m. — Proceeded.“ 6.0 p.m. — Arrived Zemun.“ This day steamed five hours, making 85 kilometers, average speed 15 kilometers

per hour.

“ November 1st.

“ A t Zemun. A t this place we dropped our lighter and the tug and at 10.30 a.m. were about to proceed when the Serbian soldier whom we had taken on board at B atina as guard objected, saying his orders were to take the convoy first to Belgrade and then Gradiste. Explanations were of no avail, so we again made fast alongside. Our m anipulant saw the Chief of Customs, who did not even prepare to act ; however, after much argument, he consented to place a Customs guard on the lighter remaining, and the other lighter with its soldier guard was then able to proceed a t 1.20 p.m., arriving a t Gradiste a t 6.30 p.m.

“ This day steamed five hours, making 116 kilometers, average speed 23.1 kilometers per hour, all the morning having been wasted by the Customs lack of efficiency.

“ November 2nd.“ A t Gradiste. Serbian Customs examination station. No cargo to handle.“ 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. — Manipulant ashore going through manifest and

other formalities a t Customs.“ 10.30 a.m. — M anipulant and six Customs officials came on board. Lighter

and tug thoroughly searched. Crew checked and quarters thoroughly searched. Inside my boots and all papers scrutinised. I would point out th a t the crew, tug and barge had been thoroughly searched entering the Serbian Danube, manifest, etc., gone through, hatches sealed.

“ 11.0 a.m. — Exam ination finished. Proceeded.“ 1.15 p.m. to 2.40 p.m. — Called a t Drinkova for orders.“ 4.0 p.m. — Arrived Szynoze, a t which place tug A turned over its lighter to

tug B . .“ This day steamed 5 % hours, making 64 kilometers.

— 168 —

“ November 3rd.

“ Tug B engaged in helping tug A to assemble a convoy bound upstream, after which proceeded to Orsova.

“ 12.30 p.m. — Arrived Orsova, making lighter fast to the Customs wharf. L ighter had half-ton of cargo to discharge and the tug to coal. On account of thé I slowness of work, and no one appearing to consider time of any value, i t w a s not ' until the nex t evening th a t we were ready to proceed, of course too dark th e n , so we remained until the following morning.

“ November 4th.

“ A t Orsova.

“ November 5th.

“ Tug assembled a convoy ; did various odd jobs, finally landing me a t Turnu- Severin a t 2.0 p.m. Tug returning upstream.

“ 4.0 p.m. -—■ Tug C and three lighters arrived. Repaired on board and a rranged passage to Vidin. Tug had 20 tons to discharge, which was only completed a t 8.30a.m., two days later. The captain informed me th a t i t always takes him half a day to get the Customs formalities gone through ; in this case he was the whole of the first m orning with the Customs officials before he got permission to commence un load ­ing the 20 tons.

“ November 1th.

“ Tug C finished discharging.“ 9.0 a.m. — Proceeded.“ 11.0 a.m. to 6 p.m. — Anchored convoy and proceeded.”

T h a t conditions are no t far different to-day m ay be seen from the following :“ On Jan u ary 11th, 1925, the S.S. A, in express goods traffic with urgent goods

barges, arrived a t 11.30 a.m. a t the Serb-Croat-Slovene frontier station of B ezdan going downstream, and as i t was Sunday could only be examined by the Customs on Monday morning, Jan u ary 12th, in spite of three times the charges being offered to the Customs authorities by the company’s agency a t Bezdan. The steam er was thereby delayed 24 hours.

“ On March 23rd, 1925, the self-propelled barge B, of the same line, with two urgent maize barges, arrived a t Bezdan a t 9 a.m. going upstream. The Customs revision was completed by paym ent of the fees to the Customs authorities a t 1 p.m., but the barge was obliged to w ait for the police inspection. The police authorities were no t available, as i t was tim e for the mid-day meal and the departure was delayed until 3 p.m.

“ The barge C of the same line, which was despatched with 3 % truck-loads of goods from Vienna to Temesvar, had to pay the following taxes in the Serb-Croat-Slovene section :

Dinara.Customs taxes in the Serb-Croat-Slovene section :

Customs escort from Bezdan to the Bega frontier. . . . . . . 8 4 0 -Customs charges in Beckerek for inspection of the barge . . . 75.—Customs papers and s t a m p s ................................................... 32.50H arbour report papers and stam ps in B e c k e re k ................ 85.75

1,033.25

“ Thus the barge, which did not load or discharge any goods in the S. H. S. King­dom, had to pay about 3 dinara per 100 kilos in Custom s and port dues alone. These costs are a charge on the freight, which is payable in lei. On an average, the freight from Vienna to Temesvar is 150 lei, and about 10 lei is due solely to Serb-Croat-Slovene Customs im port dues.

— 169 —

“ The self-propelled barge D of this line arrived a t Bezdan going downstream on June 17th,1925, with 7% truck-loads of goods for various Serb-Croat-Slovene stations. In Bezdan 1 % truck-loads were discharged, for which the D had to pay the port tax , amounting to 220 dinars. In addition, 16 dinars were paid for the port report papers and stamps. In order th a t the barge might be cleared quickly, extraordinary charges of 60 dollars were paid to the Customs officials in Bezdan. The next station a t which the D arrived was Osijek, on June 18th a t 10 o’clock, but was only able to discharge a small pa rt of the goods for Osijek on the same day because another barge which had arrived earlier had to pass the Customs. I t was only on the next day th a t the to ta l quan tity of goods for Osijek could be discharged, and after a delay of over th ir ty hours the barge was able to proceed to the next station - Vukovar. On account of th is delay, the D arrived a t Zemun, instead of Friday evening, June 19th, as it should have done in accordance w ith the schedule and the contract for the delivery of goods, only on Saturday afternoon, a t a time when the Customs office was no longer working. E x ­traordinary charges had again to be paid to the Customs officials in order th a t the clearance m ight take place on Saturday evening and the D could a t any rate s ta r t its return journey on Sunday morning. If the D had also had goods for Belgrade Save, the port ta x paid in Bezdan would have had to be paid again because the port tax is doubled for territorial waters. ”

DELAYS AT EACH FR O N TIER .

A uthority Germany Austria Czech o- slova kia H ungary S. H . S.

Hours H ours H ours Hours Hours

Bavarian Lloyd . . . . 1-2 1-2 1-2 2-6 3-36D. D. S. G...................... 1 i - i y2 1-2 2 each, Szob and Mohacs 3 each, Bezdan and Gra­

(waiting up to 12 hours.) diste (waiting up to20 hours.)

Erdex : dow nstream 0.1 6.4 4.8„ upstream . . . 0.1 5.4 8.5

Czechoslovakia Co___ y2- i y2- i y2- i 2 y2- 5 10—15M. F. T. R ........................ 2-4 2-4 2-4 2 -4 each, Szob-Mohacs 2—4 each, Bezdan and

GradisteS. H. S............................. 2 2 5 14 5N. F. R ........................... 8 10

Annex VIII.

DELAYS IN OPERATING VESSELS.

Some indication of the m ethods of operation and the utilisation of cargo space and tractive power can be obtained from an examination of the following quotations m ade in a report of an inspector of one of the steamship companies.

Although this inspection was made four years ago, examinations of the books of a steamship company and calculations based on the actual performance of the tugs and barges tend to show his report to be suggestive of present conditions, though there has doubtless been improvement.

“ B a r g e A.

“ March 17th to May 26th, 1921 — 70 days.

“ Loaded with 400 tons maize from Bezdan to Linz — 442 English miles upstream.

Days. Per cent

waiting for t u g ............................................................. 33.7 47.9a t the frontier (Customs and police examinations). 11.8 16.9under w a y ...................................................................... 8.9 12.7loading and unloading .............................................. 5 . - 7.2anchored during night .............................................. 4.6 6.6passing through the locks in channel Bezdan-

Zomber-Bezdan .................................................... 4 . - 5.8on E aster holidays .................................................... 2 . - 2.9

T o t a l ......................................................................... 70 .- 100.-

“ B a r g e B .

“ April 14th to June 4th, 1921 — 51 days.

“ 290 tons posts from Komarno to Ujpest — 69 miles downstream.

“ Time spent waiting e m p t y ..................waiting loaded for the tug in loading and unloading on Easter holidays . ...under repair .....................under w a y ...........................moored during n ig h t.a t the frontier (Customs and police examinations)

T o t a l .................... 1......................................................

Days. Per cent.

25.6 50.-8.1 16.-7.5 14.83 .- 5.92 . - 3.92.6 5.11.2 2.41 - 1.9

5 1 - 100.-

— 171 —

“ B a r g e C.

“ March 26th to June 4th, 1921 — 98 days.

44 tons planks from Linz to Budapest — 304 miles downstream.

Time spent waiting loaded on account of low waterwaiting for tu g ............waiting em pty for cargo loading and unloadingon holidays..................under w a y ..................moored during n ig h t.a t the frontier (Customs and police examinations)

Total .....................................

Days. Per cent.

46 .-13.5

j 60.7

19.- 19.411 .- 11.33 .- 3.053 .- 3.051.5 1.51 .- 1 .-

98 .- 1 0 0 -

“ There were visited a further nine barges. Their work per barge on the average during the four m onths from February 1st until June 1st was :

“ Time spent waiting l o a d e d ...........................................,, under way and moored during night ...„ loading and unloading ............................„ waiting e m p t y ...........................................„ on holidays.....................................................

T o t a l .................... !.....................................

Days. Per cent.

58.6 48.928.5 23.8

9.8 8 . -20.3 16.9

2.8 2.4

120.- 100. -

“ The above-mentioned data are taken w ithout exception from the barge- helmsmen’s official diaries. Therefore i t can be stated th a t the barges were waiting 60 to 70 per cent of the time, partly empty, partly loaded — th a t is to say, they were not employed in a profitable manner.

“ Only 30 to 40 per cent of the time is used for loading and unloading, for the voyage itself and stoppages during the same, on the frontier and repairs.

“ The reason for long waiting of loaded barges is mostly low water, and in a lesser degree is due to lack of towing power. I t m ust be noted th a t some barges were loaded down to such a depth as precluded their being towed for weeks and months. In such cases there is undertaken only exceptionally an unloading of the cargo for the purpose of despatching goods and setting free cargo space ; hereby is explained the enormously long time taken in sailing from S.H.S. State to Bavaria. The barge ‘A’ took 70 days from Bezdan to Linz, and the barge * X ’ was waiting fully laden 101 days out of 120 days. The data of barge ‘ X ’ previous to these 120 days we could not examine personally as the diaries were already handed back. According to information furnished by the helmsman, the barge ‘ X ’ was waiting laden from November 1920 till May 1921.

“ I t m ust be pointed out th a t these bad conditions with regard to cargo space also exist in other companies and in a worse degree. We were told th a t laden barges belonging to other companies were taking six, seven and eight months to sail from Pancsova, Zemun and Novisad to Ratisbon. ”

The case, as far as tow-boats is concerned, is just as striking. The average time run before the war, when the companies were supposed to be operating efficiently, for one of the best companies, was about 1,700 hours per year. This, i t will be seen for a year when the navigation season lasts for 300 days, is 5 2/3 hours per day. According to the system of entering running time in the logs of the tow-boats, an hour m ust be deducted from this sum to allow for such manœuvres as making up a tow, landing, anchoring for the night, and so on. The report pre­viously mentioned gives the running time of tugs a t a little higher figure. The inspector’s

— 172 —

exact ideas on the subject can, however, be obtained from a consideration of the following extracts : ►

“ In the year 1921 the daily working, or ra ther travelling, of a tug is on the average seven to eight hours, according to official diaries seen by us. I t m ust be added that th is small capacity cannot be considered a t all as actual travelling time. On the one hand, each m ovem ent of the tug will be counted — for instance, manoeuvres which waste tim e and are not always nautically sound ; on the other, the lengthy assembling of convoys, the daily anchoring, mooring and local service, all of which is counted as ‘ voyage t im e ’. This tim e is still fu rther rounded off in the diaries in favour of the crews. Calculating very cautiously, there can be deducted one hour of the official journey tim e as not being of any ton-kilom eter effect, so th a t there remain six to seven hours’ effective average daily travelling. In the w inter m onths, the figure is lower, in the summer m onths higher, b u t the average of both is six to seven hours.

“ This small capacity is the result of four chief and numerous minor factors. The four chief factors are : the existing system of wages, which offer scarcely any a ttrac tion to good work, defective orders, the physical impossibility of sailing on dark nights and uneconomical division of the river stretches. The m inor facts are : abuses, Customs and frontier chicanery, fau lty technical equipm ent of steamers, insufficient coal, food, etc.

“ Tug-Captain Doe, known as a m ost energetic captain, travelled with the tug ‘ A ’ in May 1921 altogether 227% hours ; therefore, on a daily average, 7.3 hours. B u t his diary indicates on nine (certainly selected) days of the same m onth 143 hours — th a t is a very high daily average of 15.9 hours journey time. Against tha t, the steamer, for lack of orders, was obliged to stay inactive a t Zemun from May 14th till 21st (156 hours). Bringing th is not rare circumstance into connection with the waiting tim e of barges discussed above, m y s ta tem ent th a t i t is not only the crew’s fault when the cargo space is not used in a profitable way is true.

“ The nautically almost undivided line Ratisbon-Gônyü is divided into three, often also into four, stretches. This means th a t a barge which has to be towed from R atisbon to the middle or the lower Danube will not be towed by one tug, but that in Linz and Vienna, frequently also in Passau, tugs are changed. The uneconomical results of a too-frequent changing of tugs will be seen distinctly in the following case : from March 1st till May 25th, 1921, 65 barges passed Linz upstream and down­stream w ithout loading or unloading there. Their stay a t Linz was exclusively occa­sioned by changing of tugs. Of the 65 barges only two were towed on the day of their arrival, and only three after a day ’s delay, b u t the average waiting tim e for all 65 barges was 7.6 days.

“ The following inform ation from another company gives another idea : from Ja n u a ry 1st to June 16th, 1921, 91 barges passed Vienna up and down stream, without loading or unloading there. W aiting tim e caused by changing tugs was, on the average, 14.2 days.

“ Due to lack of orders o ther delays result. Some concrete cases are : tug ‘ B arrived in Vienna on May 15th a t 9 p.m., found orders to undertake two hours’ local service, and got further directions — for further local service and to proceed to Budapest -—■ only on May 17th a t 12 noon, therefore 39 hours after arrival. The ‘ B ’ had five boats of the 1 Z ’ Company, two ‘ Y ’ barges and barge ‘ X ’ tow from Vienna to Budapest. I cannot believe th a t the necessity of conveying these vessels from Vienna to Budapest was known only on May 17th.

“ On May 19th a t 6 p.m. the tug ‘ B ’ arrived in Budapest. Also there the tug found no fresh orders for the next course, b u t only directions for a two hours’ local service. Sixteen hours after arrival, the tug ‘ B ’ got the order to m eet the ‘ C ’ coming upstream from Baja. The ‘ B ’ left in Budapest the vessels of the ‘ Z ’ Company destined for Belgrade, and sailed w ithout barges to D unafôldvarand there took only half of the tug ‘ C ’s ’ convoy.

“ On June 6th a t 2 p.m. the ‘ D ’ arrived in Zemun with two barges destined for Roum ania. A t this tim e the tug ‘ E ’ was already in Zemun. Sixty-four

— 173 —

hours later, a t 6 a.m. on June 9th, the * A ’ arrived a t Zemun from Turnu Severin with seven tanks and the tug ‘ F ’ in tow. Accordingly, on June 9th, there were four tugs a t Zemun w ithout any orders whatsoever. A t the same time, there were lying there six laden tanks destined for Ratisbon and two laden barges for Roumania. On the same day a t 5 p.m. there arrived, indeed, a telegraphic order th a t ‘ A ’ would sail to Budapest, bu t the definite order arrived only 36 hours after the ‘ A’s ’ arrival a t 6 p.m. on June 10th. For the other three tugs no orders arrived during the five days of m y stay — th a t is, up to the forenoon of June 11th.

“ Oil May 23rd the laden barges ‘ M ’ and 1 0 ’ were a t Ordas. Captain Doe, who was passing by, said th a t these barges were destined for Belgrade as well as the rest of his convoy, bu t th a t he had no order to pick them up. Indeed, these two barges were towed downstream by the tug ‘ C ’ eight days later, on May 31st. ”

The tugs of the company which he visited seem to have been run in a very haphazard fashion. According to his report, however, they were handled better than those of others, and consequently the following can probably be taken as typical :

“ The captain’s wife travelled on the tug ‘ G ’ from Stein to Passau and from there to Linz. A t the same time the wives of two helmsmen were on board too. Travelling of women seems to be usual, especially on the tug ‘ G ’.

“ On tug 1 C ’ and tug ‘ S ’ during our presence two firemen were allowed by the captain to go home. During their absence one fireman of the tug 1 S ’ became ill and the voyage had to be interrupted until a new fireman was found.

“ Interruptions of the voyage for the sake of buying food and taking in water are quite normal, b u t tug 1 G ’ stopped even for the purchase of a newspaper or wine or for the em barkm ent of one or other of the women mentioned. To show the very patriarchal m anner of travelling, the details of the voyage of the tug 1 C ’ from Ersekc- sanad to Budapest m ay be given :

Departure from Ersekcsanad.Stopped a t Fadd-Tolna in order th a t the wives of the barge helmsmen m ight make visits on shore and the cook m ight buy wine.Departure from Fadd-Tolna.Stopped a t Paks to buy wine as this could not be got a t Fadd-Tolna.Departure from Paks.Stopped a t Ordas th a t a tank helmsman might disembark his pigs.Departure from Ordas.Stopped a t Dunafôldvar to send telegrams to the head office a t ‘ R ’, and to the wives of the captain and the machinists announcing arrival a t ‘ R ’.Departure from Dunafôldvar.Stopped a t Dunapentele on account of darkness. Departure from Dunapentele.Stopped a t Nagyteteny in order th a t the wives of some barge helmsmen might go on shore.Departure from Nagyteteny.Three tanks of the convoy anchored a t the winter harbour Lagymanyos near Budapest.Arrival in Budapest.

“ Of course, the stoppages a t Paks, Ordas, Dunafôldvar and Nagyteteny were written in the diary as travelling time.

27th, 3.15 p.m.8 p.m.

28th, 0.10 a.m.6.30 a.m.

7.20 a.m.8.30 a.m.

9 a.m.3.15 p.m.

4 p.m.9.45 p.m.

29th, 0.10 a.m.0.15 p.m.

1.15 p.m.4 p.m.

5.15 p.m.

— 174

Annex IX.

INTERNATIONAL DANUBE COMMISSION.

F irst Se s s io n , J u n e 1920.

Questions submitted for discussion. Result.

1. O rganisation of th e Commission ................................................................................ D ecision taken2. Chairm anship ................................................................................................................. D ecision taken3. S e c r e t a r i a t .............................................................................................................................. D ecision taken4. A g e n t s ........................................................................................................................................ D ecision taken5. B u d g e t ........................................................................................................................................ D ecision taken6 . W o r k s .......................................................................................................................................... P ostponed7. F ix in g date o f th e n e x t m eeting, th e place and the p rogram m e D ecision taken

Second Se s s io n , Septem ber 1920.

Questions submitted for discussion. Result.

1. Internal regulations :

(a ) Com m ission .............................................................................................................. D ecision taken( b) C h a ir m a n s h ip ............................................................................................................. D ecision taken(c) E x e c u t iv e C om m ittee .......................................................................................... D ecision taken(d) S e c r e t a r ia t .................................................................................................................... D ecision taken

2. Iron G ates :(a ) F u n c t io n s ....................................................................................................................... D ecision taken(b) P e r s o n n e l ....................................................................................................................... D ecision taken( c) Salaries ....................................................................................................................... D ecision taken(d) T a x e s ................................................................................................................................. D ecision taken(e) R u les for passage of the Iron G a t e s ................................................................ D ecis ion taken( f) M aterial ....................................................................................................................... D ecision taken(g ) B ook-keep ing ............................................................................................................. D ecision taken(h ) W o r k s .............................................................................................................................. D ecision taken

3. N a v ig a tio n and P olice regulations ......................................................................... D ecision taken4. B u d g e t ............................................................................................................................... D ecision taken

T h ir d Se s s io n , D ecem ber 1920.

Questions submitted for discussion. Result.

1. R ead in g of th e report on the operations o f the Secretaqat-G eneral fromA u gu st 20th to D ecem ber 15th, 1920 ................................................................ D ecision taken

2. D iscussion and A pproval of th e B u d get p lan for 1924 :(a ) B u d g e t of th e Secretariat-General ............................................................. D ecision taken(b) Special b u d get of Orsova ................................................................................. Decision taken

3. E stab lish m en t of provisional sta tu te for th e civil em ployees of the C .I.D . Decision taken4. A p p oin tm en t of em ployees ........................................................................................ D ecision taken5. D iscussion and transfer of th e navigation regulation project drawn up

b y th e Sub-Com m ission .......................................................................................... Postponed6 . R egulation of the Financial S tatute of the coaling s e r v ic e ................................ Postponed

— 175 —

Questions submitted for discussion.

7, Various :

(a) H ydrom etric service .....................................(b) S tate of communications at Orsova ...........(c) Towage railway of the Iron Gates ...........(d) Establishm ent of statistical service ...........(e) R ate a t which late payments should be made

crowns ...............................................................(f) Utilisation of hydraulic power ...................

F o u r th Session, A u g u s t 1921.

Questions submitted for discussion.

1. Approval of operations of the Executive Committee from November20th, 1920, to Ju ly 1st, 1921 ...............................................................

2. Closing the Budget for 1920 ...............................................................................3. Discussion for adopting the navigation regulation project ....................4. Study of a project of telegraphic organisation to facilitate the relations

of ships w ith their base ................................................................................5. Study of a uniform organisation of the statistics regarding navigation6. Presentation and discussion of the report of the Sub-Commission for

taxes (decision of September 1920) ........................................................7. Study of m ethods suitable for reducing the time taken for transports

on the Danube .................................................................................................8. Appointment of e m p lo y e e s ................................................................................9. Study and approval of the programmes of maintenance works sub­

m itted by certain riparian States ......................................................10. Decision to be taken regarding the work of the hydrometric service ...11. Advisability of having a systematic study made by the Institu te for

Scientific Research a t Vienna as to the means for increasing the power of propulsion of river vessels ......................................................

12. Permanent visas of the passports of the members and the personnel ofthe C om m iss ion .................................................................................................

13. Service of Orsova .................................................................................................14. Seat of the Commission and of the Secretariat-General............................

F i f t h Session, N ovem ber 1921.

Questions submitted for discussion.1. Study of the Bavarian project regarding the Kachlet .............................2. Approval of the operations of the Executive Committee from Ju ly 1st

to November 1st, 1921 ................................................................................3. Appointment of German d e le g a t io n s ..............................................................4. Passage of the Cataracts by barges transformed into t a n k s ....................5. Navigation rules .................................................................................................6. Telegraphic organisation ...............................................................................7. Uniform statistics for Danube navigation .............................................8. Duration of transport on the Danube ......................................................9. Treatment of bunker coal on steamers ......................................................

10. Installation of the C. I.D . a t Bratislava ........... ............ ....................11. Provision for the practical application of certain regulations of the

Convention regarding the Danube sta tu te ... ... ...12. Addition to the internal regulation of the Commission (Chairmanship)

.........................A ccounts in

Result.

Questions adjourned for

a later meeting

Result.

Decision taken Decision taken Postponed

PostponedPostponed

Postponed

Postponed Decision taken

Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken

Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken

Result. Decision taken

Decision taken Postponed Decision taken Postponed Postponed Postponed Postponed Decision taken Decision taken

PostponedPostponed

— 176 —

Questions submitted for discussion.

13. Navigation dues ..................................................................................................14. H ydrom etric service. Project of service for giving information to

steamers ...........................................................................................................15. Principles for uniform buoying proposed for adoption on the in ter­

nationalised system ..........................................................................................16. Proposals regarding the uniform kilométrage of the Danube ............17. S tudy regarding indications of hydrometric scales .............................18. Proposals regarding the sanitary regulation of navigation on the Danube19. Coaling serv ice ...........................................................................................................20. Budget proposal of the Secretariat-General for 1922 .............................21. Budget proposal of the Iron Gates for 1922 ..............................................22. N ext meeting ...........................................................................................................

Sixth Session , J une 1922.

Questions submitted for discussion.

1. Approval of the operation of the Executive Committee from November1st, 1921, to May 15th, 1922 ........................................................................

(a) R eport on the discussions of the Executive Com m ittee.....................( b) R eport of the Secretariat-General .......................................................(c) Transfer of the seat of the Commission ..............................................

2. Report of the Technical Sub-Commission on the principles forestablishing a general programme for the im portant improvement works on the Danube .................................................................................

3. Report of the Technical Sub-Commission on the proposals :(a) For service giving information to steamers ........................................(b) Principles for uniform buoy ing ...............................................................( c) Single and uniform k ilom étrage ................................................................

4. Tonnage regu la tion ..................................................................................................5. Conclusions of the Telegraphic Conference a t B u c h a re s t ....................6. (a) Navigation r u l e s ................................................................................. ...

(b) Means suitable for decreasing the tim e taken for Danube trans­ports ...........................................................................................................

7. Navigation dues :

fa ) Iron Gates dues .................................................................................( b) Delays in the paym ents of navigation dues a t the Iron Gates ...(c) Dues payable by vessels undertaking police or supervision work(d) Dues a t present paid for vessels in tran s it .......................................

8. Position of the C. I. D. with regard to the League of Nations in respectof navigable ways and tran s it ................................................................

9. Suggestions of the Director of the International Labour Office regardingco-operation with river commissions for regulating the work of the personnel on vessels....................................................... "............................

10. A ppointm ent of delegations of the German riparian States and theirrepresentation on the Executive Committee ......................................

11. Legal position of the personnel of the delegations and employees of theC .I .D ........................................................................................................................

12. The application of provisions of the Danube S tatu te .............................13. Possible resources of the C. I. D ...........................................................................14. Project for damming the waters of the L e c h ..............................................15. Position of the personnel w ith regard to the transfer of the Commission

the Bratislava ..................................................................................................

Result.

Postponed

Postponed

Postponed Postponed Postponed Postponed Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken

Result.

Decision takenDecision taken Decision taken Decision taken

Postponed

Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken

Postponed Decision taken Postponed

Postponed

Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken

Decision taken

Postponen

Decision taken Decision taken Postponed Decision taken

Decision taken

— 177 —

Questions subm itted for discussion.

16 Position of M. Ganssloser, third-class assistant to the Navigation Sectionyi\ Hydrometric bulletin ........................................................................................18 Journal of the Commission ...............................................................................ig' iron Gates service :

(a) Changes in the personnel (retirements, appointments, e tc .) ...........(b) Appointm ent of pilot apprentices .....................................................(c) Construction material (property of the material of the Freund

enterprise) ................................................................................................

20. Drawing up reports of the plenary sessions and the meetings of the Executive Committee ...............................................................................

Seventh Session, November 1922.

Questions submitted for discussion.

1. Report of the operations from June 1st to October 15th, 1922.......................2. Works :

(a) Classification of the regulation of the Danube a t Kaposztasmegyeras m aintenance or improvement w o r k ................................................

(b) Preliminary work for the construction of a port projected by theCzechoslovakian Government near Zahon-Cop on the Upper Tisza ......................................................

3. Navigation and Police reg u la tio n ....................4. International Telegraphic Conference a t Bucarest :

(a) Establishm ent of the Convention(b) P u tting into o p e ra tio n .............................

5. Measures taken for communicating information contained in the Hydro-metric Bulletin after i t has been discontinued

6. Treatment of navigation in transit :(a) Vessels in transit. Goods in transit on the river. Definitions

in the various riparian States ..............................................................(b) T reatm ent a t present applied. Various taxes or dues. Goods of

which the transport is subject to regulations. Monopoly goods, tran s it permits ........................................................................................

(c) Application of the provisions of Article 23 of the Danube Statute ...7. Means suitable for decreasing the time taken for transport on the Danube8. The application of provisions of the Danube Statute ;

(a) General provisions. Works, taxes, etc., already examined by theSpecial Committee of delegates ......................................................

(b) Internal regulation of the Commission (representation of Germanriparian S ta te s ) .............................................................................

(c) Organisation and working of the central services of the Commission :Functions. Rôle. Statute regarding em ployees............................

(d) Agents appointed by the riparian States. Functions, e tc ..............(e) Resources of the C.I.D. in order to meet its expenses ....................(f) Organisation of special services for the Iron G a te s .............................

9. Journal of the Commission ...............................................................................10. Statistics ..................................................................................................................11. Current questions^regarding rthe |Iron Gates :

(a) Questions of personnel. Appointments, retirements, etc ....................(b) Requests for exemption from taxes for certain categories of vessels

(pontoons, floating workshops, e tc .) ......................................................(c) Utilisation of the Tug V a s k a p u ..............................................................

Result. Postponed Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken

Decision taken

Result. Decision taken

Postponed

Decision taken Postponed

PostponedPostponed

Decision taken

Postponed

PostponedPostponedPostponed

Postponed

Decision taken

Decision takenPostponedPostponedPostponedDecision takenPostponed

Decision taken

Decision taken Decision taken

12

— 178 —

Questions submitted for discussion :

12. Budget for 1923 :

(a) Budget of the Central Service ................................................................(b) Budget of the Service of the Iron G a t e s ......................................

E ig h t h Se s s io n , J u n e 1923.

Questions submitted for discussion :

1. Approval of operations of the Executive Committee. Financial positionon December 31st, 1922 .................................................................................

2. Regulation of the Danube near Kaposztasmegyer ......................................Classification of work ..........................................................................................Definition of the normal s ta te of the navigable channel.............................

3. Exam ination of the annual programme of m aintenance or improvementwork and the work provided for by Article 14 of the S ta tu te ............

4. Delimitation of the internationalised system ..............................................5. Navigation and police r u l e s .................................................................................6. Tonnage rules. Ships’ papers, e tc ......................................................................7. (a ) T reatm ent of navigation in transit .......................................................

(b) Means suitable for decreasing the time taken for transport on theDanube ..................................................................................................

8. Navigation statistics ..........................................................................................9. Appointm ent of German delegations ................................................................

10. Rules establishing the order of work of the Commission. Second readingof the reserved articles .................................................................................

11. Application of provisions of the Danube S ta tu te ......................................12. Resources of the C.I.D. in order to meet its expenditu re .............................13. M onetary basis for drawing up the budget ..............................................14. S ta tu te of the employees of the C.I.D ...............................................................15. R en t of building. R ent of apartm ents for the employees ....................16. Settlem ent of invoices for articles bought from the fund of 40,000 francs

placed a t the disposal of the Commission by the Czechoslovak G overnm en t...........................................................................................................

17. Representation of the Commission a t the T hirteenth Navigation Congressin London ...................................................................................................

18. Year-Book of the International Danube Commission..................................19. Questions regarding the service of the Iron Gates :

(a) Revision of the drafting of the provisional rules for the navigationserv ice ............................................................................................................

( b) Revision of taxes for the Vaskapu .......................................................(c) Transformation of money reserves .......................................................

20. Fixing the date and place of the N inth Session ......................................

N in t h Se s s io n , N o v e m b e r - D e c e m b e r 1923.

Questions submitted for discussion

1. Approval of the operations of the Executive C o m m itte e .............................2. S ta tu te for the personnel of the C.I.D................................................................3. Internal rules of the C.I.D. :

(a) In terpretation of Articles 11, 13, 1 7 .......................................................(b) Second reading of the reserved articles ...............................................(c) Position of the secretaries of the delegations of the Executive

C o m m it t te e ...................................................................................................

Result.

Decision taken Decision taken

Result.

Decision taken Decision taken Postponed Postponed

Decision taken Postponed Postponed Decision taken Postponed

PostponedPostponedPostponed

Postponed Postponed Postponed Postponed Postponed Decision taken

Decision taken

Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken Postponed Postponed Decision taken

Result. Decision taken Postponed

PostponedPostponed

Postponed

— 179 —

Questions submitted for discussion.

4. Budget of the S ecre ta ry -G enera l........................................................................Money basis for his departm ent ........................................................................

5. Rent for the building of the C.I.D. and apartm ents rented toemployees ..................................................................................................

6. Service of the Iron Gates.(a) [ Freund stone m a t e r i a l ................................................................................(b) Expulsion of an e m p lo y e e ........................................................................(c) Pension for the pilot Szigeti ...............................................................(d) Indem nity to employees for increased cost of living ....................

7. Budget of the Iron Gates ................................................................................Money basis of the Budget ................................................................................Transformation of reserves ................................................................................

8. Fixing the place and date of the next plenary session .............................

T enth Session, J une 1924.

Questions submitted for discussion.

1. Approval of the operations of the Executive C o m m itte e .............................2. Navigation and police rules :

(a) Second reading of the headings :II. Papers necessary for permission to n a v ig a te ...........................IV. Provisions applicable to rafts .......................................................V. Provisions regarding vessels transporting explosive and in­

flammable m aterials ........................................................................VI. Contraventions .................................................................................

(b) Proposals for insertion under heading VII. Special provisions.Text and form of publication of this heading .............................

(c) Improvement of tex t of the entire rules by a drafting committee.3. Treatment of navigation in transit :

(a) Rules by which i t m ay be decided whether the general police regu­lations do not affect freedom of navigation in transit and the validity of any claims th a t m ay be made .....................................

(b) Measures regarding sanitary and veterinary protection with regardto navigation in transit ........................................................................

(c) Exam ination of the Serb-Croat-SIovene rules regarding Customstreatm ent in t r a n s i t .................................................................................

4. Examination of the H ungarian rules regarding the control of river traffic5. Works :

(a) Classification of the w o r k s ........................................................................(b) Form of presentation of annual programme of work.............................(c) Exam ination of works programmes for 1924 .....................................

6. Questions concerning the Iron Gates.(a) Legal situation of Iron Gates services ..............................................(b) New organisation of Iron Gates .......................................................(c) Loan formerly issued by Hungary regarding Iron Gates 3 per cent

gold 1895 and the right of administration of the Iron Gates sector of the cataracts .............................

(d) Appointment o r pensioning of pilots(e) Towage service .............................(f) Transformation of re s e rv e s ............(g) Administrative questions ............(h) Freund m aterial .............................

Result. Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken

Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken Decision taken Postponed Postponed Decision taken

Result. Decision taken

Postponed Decision taken

Decision taken Decision taken

PostponedPostponed

Postponed

Postponed

PostponedPostponed

Postponed Decision taken Postponed

PostponedPostponed

PostponedDecision takenPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponed

— 180 —

Questions submitted jor discussion.

7. A ppointm ent of German delegations ................................................................8. Internal rules of the C. I. D .....................................................................................9. Rules for the personnel .............................................. ......................................

10. Transmission of daily observations to States below Bratislava from theservice for giving information to vessels a t Passau .............................

11. Fixing the place and date of the next plenary session .............................

E leventh Session , N ovember 1924.

Questions submitted for discussion.1. Approval of the operations of the Executive C o m m itte e .............................2. Financial and budget questions :

(a) Budget of the Secretariat-General for 1925 ......................................(b) Budget of the Iron Gates for 1925 .......................................................

Indem nity for increased cost of living ..............................................( c) Various financial questions :

M onetary basis of budget ; transform ation of r e s e r v e s ....................3. Rules for the personnel of the C. I. D.

(a) Organisation of the personnel, S ta tu te ..............................................(b) Appointm ent of head of navigation service ......................................

4. Navigation and Police rules :Introduction. General and final provisions ..............................................II. Conditions required for navigating .......................... ....................VII. Special provisions on certain sections, including provisional rules

for navigation in the Iron Gates s e c t io n ..............................................5. Transmission of hydrometric information .......................................................6. Transit :

(a) Directions ..................................................................................................(b) Customs rules applicable to navigation in transit in the Kingdom

of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes .......................................................(c) Sanitary and veterinary measures .......................................................

7. Regulations for the control of river traffic in Hungary .............................8. Special taxes imposed in Austria, Roumania and in the Kingdom of the

Serbs, Croats and Slovenes ........................................................................Iron Gates Service.

9. (a) Legal position of the s e rv ic e s ................................................................(b) New organisation of the services ......................................................

10. (a) Accounts ...................................................................................................(b) Loan formerly issued by Hungary 3 per cent bonds of the Iron

Gates ...........................................................................................................11. Freund m aterial ..................................................................................................12. Navigation accidents :

(a) Sanctions to be pronounced ................................................................(b) Rules of procedure in case of accidents ..............................................(c) Rules applicable to pilots ................................................................

13. Towage a t the Iron Gates(a) Towage d u e s ............................. ................................................................(b) Use of Vaskapu ..........................................................................................( c) Exem ption from dues .................................................................................

14. Position of the International Commission and the navigation service a tthe Iron Gates from the point of view of the paym ent of Customs dues demanded by the Roum anian adm inistration ......................................

Result.

PostponedPostponedPostponed

Postponed Decision taken

Result. Decision taken

Decision taken Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken

PostponedPostponed

Decision taken Postponed

Decision taken Decision taken

Decision taken

PostponedPostponedPostponed

Postponed

PostponedPostponedPostponed

Decision taken Postponed

Decision takenPostponedPostponed

Decision takenPostponedPostponed

Postponed

— 181 —

T w e l f t h Se s s io n h e l d at Str b sk e P l e s o , J u n e - J u l y 1925.

Questions submitted for discussion.

1. Approval of operations of Executive Committee from October 15th, 1924,to May 15th, 1925 ........................................................................................

2. Method of drawing up Minutes of plenary sessions .....................................3. Method of drawing up Minutes of the meetings of the Executive

Committee .........................................................................................................4. Dues:

(a) On registration of bills of lading in Roumania (1 per cent tax onfreight bill) ...................................................... ............................

(b) On a Roumanian Shipping Company in A u s t r i a .............................(c) On interior transports in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and

Slovenes .................................................................................................

5. S.H. S. decree prohibiting foreign shipping companies from employingforeign staffs in their agencies in S. H. S. territory............................

g. Payment to the Commission’s telegraphists and telephonists ............7. Insurance of {auxiliary staff of Secretariat-General :

1. Case of Madame Strejcek ..............................................................2. Other auxiliary employees ..............................................................

8. Organisation of staff of C .I .D ....................................................................9. Invitation from Council of League of Nations to attend Conference of

European States on measurements of inland navigation vessels ...10. Veterinary protection in relation to navigation in S. H. S. Kingdom11. Rules for control of river traffic in Hungary .....................................12. Examination of maintenance programmes for 1925-1926 :

(a) Approval of programmes for 1925-1926 .....................................(b) Date for examination of annual p ro g ra m m e s .............................(c) Proposition of S.H.S. as to form of presentation of annual pro­

grammes .................................................................................................

13.

14.15.16. 17.

18.19.20. 21. 22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.

Form of presentation of projects for general programmes of large worksof improvement ................................................................................

Principles governing the establishment of aids to navigation ...Appointment of pilot apprentices .............................................Translation of documents connected with the Iron Gates service Towing service a t Iron Gates :

(a) Study of various methods of traction ............................(b) Decision to m aintain temporarily present mode of traction(c) Decision to tes t cable a t present in use ....................(d) Purchase of new cable for Vaskapu............................

Advice of arrival of barges in the Cataract Section ...........Increase in Iron Gates dues ......................................................Prohibition for S. S. Anghet Saligny to use Cataract Section New organisation of Iron Gates Services by Roumania and S. H Administrative m atters relating to staff a t Iron Gates ...Salary of Chief Accountant in Iron Gates Service ...........Supplementary credits in Iron Gates Budget ....................Co-efficient index applied to salaries of staff a t Iron GatesInsurance of auxiliary staff ....................Internal rules of C. I. D. ....................Designation of German delegatesResources of C. I. D ......................................Quotas, interest on delayed payments

Result.

Action taken Action taken

Action taken

PostponedPostponed

Postponed

Postponed Action taken

Action takenPostponedPostponed

Action takenPostponedPostponed

Action taken Postponed

Postponed

??

Action taken Action taken

Action taken Action taken Action taken Postponed

PostponedPostponedAction takenPostponedAction takenAction takenAction takenPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponed

— 182 —

Questions submitted for discussion.

31. Control of river traffic in H ungary ................................................................32. Request of Dr. H ajnal ..........................................................................................33. Customs duties a t Iron Gates ........................................................................34. Salaries of assistant engineers ........................................................................35. Rules for pilots .......................................................................................................36. Rules of procedure governing inquiries .......................................................37. Arandjelovitch and similar q u e s t io n s ................................................................38. Increase in rates of interest on delayed paym ent of navigation dues a t

Iron Gates ...........................................................................................................39. Pensions and rewards to staff a t Iron Gates ..............................................40. Effect of difference between index figure and the rate of exchange in the

S. H. S. Kingdom .......................................................................................41. Revision of resolution relating to information given to nav ig a to rs ............42. Study of questions in s u s p e n s e ........................................................................43. Date and place of next plenary session .......................................................44. Conditions for depositing with Société des Banques Suisses the surplus

funds obtained from receipts of Iron Gates Service .............................45. Methods of applying Provisional Rules of Navigation a t Iron Gates,

raised by complaints against pilots Michel and Fabian .....................46. Absence of pilot Herold from Service on account of illness from December

7th, 1924, to end of June, 1925 ................................................................47. Method of replacing Head of Service of Iron Gates in case of illness ...48. Revision of resolution relating to information supplied to navigators ...49. Navigation Police Rules : Special provisions regarding navigation on

the various sections of the river s y s t e m ...................................... ............

Result.

PostponedPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponedPostponed

PostponedPostponed

Postponed Postponed Po tponed Action taken

Postponed

Postponed

Action taken Action taken Postponed

Postponed

— 183 —

Annex X.

SUMMARY OF REPORT.

At the instance of the League’s Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit, this enquiry has been conducted by Mr. Walker D. H i n e s , with the aid of Major Brehon So m e r v e l l , of the United States Army. The report is based upon Major Somervell’s trips on the Danube from Ratisbon to Sulina and his investigations covering a period of five months, and upon Mr. Hines’ trip, accompanied by Major Somervell, on the Danube from Vienna to Sulina and return in July, and the conferences and other investigations made in the course of their visit a t th a t time to all the Danube countries.

TRAFFIC.

There are no comprehensive traffic or other statistics for the Danube, bu t the investigation indicates th a t the Danube freight traffic in 1923 and 1924 is only about 56 per cent of the normal pre-war traffic. The first six months of 1925 show an increase of about 50 per cent over the corresponding six m onths of 1924, being due to a special movement of S.H.S. maize to the sea.

No complete comparison could be made as to the amount of passenger travel pre-war and post-wrar, bu t the amount of passenger service available for travellers is greater for Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary than before the wrar, somewrhat less in the S.H.S. State, very much less in Roumania, and somewhat greater in Bulgaria. There has never been any regular passenger service on the Danube in Germany.

TH E NAVIGATION COMPANIES AND T H E IR FLEETS.

Before the war the Austrian and Hungarian navigation companies carried most of the Danube traffic, except th a t a part of the traffic below7 the Iron Gates was carried by Roumanian and Greek interests. This has been greatly changed. Now the traffic is divided among German, Austrian, Czechoslovak, Hungarian, S.H.S., Roumanian, French and Dutch navigation companies, and the Roumanian companies have been operating above the Iron Gates more than formerly. This makes the river far more international in its actual utilisation than ever before. The Greek boats, on account of their draught, still confine themselves almost wholly to operations below the Iron Gates.

The Danube fleets as a whole are about 25 per cent more than pre-war, although the Austrian and Hungarian fleets have diminished considerably, due to parts of them having become the property of Czechoslovak, S.H.S., Roumanian and French interests as a result of the war. The port and shop facilities are in general as great as, or greater than, before the war, while the traffic is still m uch less. An im portant development is the growing use of self-propelled barges for certain sorts of goods.

Already there are evidences of co-operation. The up-river companies are in a cartel to stabilise rates. The Bavarian Lloyd and Czechoslovak Company have arrangements for joint towing, joint operation ofJself-propelledibarges_and common use of some’terminals.

TH E IN FLU ENCE OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS GENERALLY AND PARTICULARLY IN ROUMANIA.

The post-war diminution of traffic has been largely due to the economic depression charac­teristic of Europe, b u t intensified in the Danube countries by the breaking up of the wide free trade area which’ existed in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. A t present this former free

— 184 —

trade area is cut across by the tariff barriers of seven different States, and this has seriously diminished commerce among them and promises to do so to a great extent, except so far as the situation m ay be ameliorated by commercial treaties among them . The making of such commercial treaties would be of distinct value to Danube navigation.

Since Old Roum ania normally produced cereals enabling it to supply one-third of the total traffic moving on the Danube, the ability of the New Roumania to produce and export cereals is of first importance to th a t traffic. B u t this outlook is unfavourable, because the post­war readjustm ents in the enlarged Kingdom seem to have cut down production while enlarging domestic consumption, leaving for Danube transport much less than before the war.

CABOTAGE AND T E R R IT O R IA L W ATERS.

A new practice since the war is th a t the S.H.S. State and Roum ania now exclude all foreign navigation companies from handling any internal traffic or “ cabotage ” on the Danube in their respective countries, and also from handling any traffic on certain im portant tribu­taries of the Danube, such as the Save and the Bega, which are now treated as territorial instead of international waters. This throws to their navigation interests large volumes of traffic enj oyed before the war by the Austrian and Hungarian companies. The la tte r also criticise the new practice as diminishing the to ta l traffic through affording less satisfactory service. The questions of right involved are partly conceded and partly disputed, and such disputes can be settled only in such way as m ay be found in the conventions among the States. But, ap a rt from questions of principle, it is a practical question as to how far Roumania and the S.H.S. State m ay not find it in their interest to g ran t limited permissions to foreign companies to participate in this traffic from tim e to time upon carefully guarded conditions. This m ight considerably improve local transportation service. Bulgaria enjoys for a long distance eight times as m uch passenger service as Roum ania on account of the la t te r’s cabotage policy. Already, as a m atte r of convenience, and w ithout waiver of its rights, Roumania has granted foreign companies access to its ports on the Bega.

CONDITIONS OF R IV E R CHANNEL.

The general conception of a minimum depth of two meters a t low water frequently fails of realisation, a t times for substantial proportions of the navigable season, because of obstacles which should be removed. Such removal above Vienna would be so costly th a t it probably could not be done except in connection with the development of hydro-electric projects. Improvements of this character would correct the present difficulties of navigation and probably be advantageous to the general economic condition of Austria. Such a project is now nearing completion a t Passau in Germany and will greatly improve the condition of the river for a considerable distance.

An im portan t stretch of the river, where it is the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, can and should be improved. I t is hoped th a t the two States can prom ptly co-operate to th a t end, because this stretch now constitutes the limiting factor in navigation between Vienna, B ratislava and Budapest. Between Budapest and Belgrade there are two points, one in H ungary and one in the S.H.S. State, at both of which correction of the existing conditions is desirable. s

The m ost difficult stretch on the river is the Iron Gates section. The necessary depth of w ater is frequently not obtainable. Operation through this section is especially difficult, even with ample water, because the current prevents the handling of more than one or two barges a t a tim e through the swifter portions. Elimination of these difficulties calls for a comprehensive study of various alternatives which are set forth in the Report. The amounts of money which would be involved are so large th a t the co-operation of all the riparian States would probably be necessary. This should be prom ptly entered upon.

Complaints as to inadequate channel a t Sulina, the m outh of the river, are now being corrected. The channel between the newly extended jetties was opened on Ju ly 25th, with a

— 185 —

depth of 20 feet, with the prospect th a t the depth would be restored to the old figure of 24 feet. On Ju ly 31st a depth of 22 feet had been already obtained.

It is highly desirable, in the interest of all the Danube countries, for the International Danube Commission to take prompt steps to draw up a general programme for the compre­hensive improvement of the river. This involves a determination as to how far the prospective traffic will justify the cost of any particular programme. Such an investigation will take a long time and will call for the services of competent engineers.

FR O N TIER FORMALITIES.

Navigation could be substantially promoted by cutting down the amount of frontier formalities and the time required for them and by providing more adequate port facilities.

The frontier formalities now involve a large economic waste, requiring tug-boats and barges to remain idle for long periods, estimated to be about 6,000 barge-days per year ; w ith corre­sponding loss of time for tugs. These delays are almost entirely post-war burdens, because before the war the Danube crossed no frontier between Passau and Orsova, a distance of 1,272 kilo­meters. In th is same section there are now four frontiers and six frontier examinations. Hungary and the S.H.S. S tate now maintain separate stations at their common frontier involving double delay, sometimes amounting to an entire day. Both States have indicated they have no objection in principle to combining their stations, and this report urges th a t they come to an agreement upon the necessary details to accomplish th a t result. Much of the delay a t the various frontiers is due to the a ttitude of the local functionaries. The report suggests that the riparian States would be justified in concerning themselves very actively with this situation so as to stimulate greater expedition. In these m atters river shipping appears to be subjected to burdens, delays and expense which have no counterpart on the railways th a t compete with the river.

PORT FACILITIES.

As to port facilities, numerous specific situations are discussed. One involves the diffi­culty of the Czechoslovak Company in getting a satisfactory terminal in Vienna. This is closely connected with the Austrian difficulty in getting satisfactory assurance as to its terminal in Bratislava. The two questions should be considered together and a fair compromise arrived at. The Austrian and Hungarian companies are denied the right to use m any of the port facili­ties which before the war they owned in the S.H.S. State and Roumania. This grows out of the policy of these two States th a t all port facilities should be owned and operated by the State ; hence their reluctance to permit private companies to establish their own facilities. Nevertheless, there is a t present a great shortage of State pontoons in Roumania and a great shortage of S tate pontoons and other port facilities in the S.H.S. State. Until the State can itself supp ly ample facilities to carry out its policy, it is suggested th a t provisional arrangements should be made whereby private companies could provide their own pontoons and other facili­ties. Roumania has already indicated th a t it has no objection to making arrangements to let the private companies use their own pontoons, subject to eventual transfer to the State.

Acting upon a general law designed to protect domestic labour, certain navigation com­panies have been notified by the S.H.S. State th a t they m ust replace their agents and other employees with S.H.S. nationals. This law is not directed against navigation, and there is also provision in it for making exceptions. It is hoped the necessary exceptions can be made, to avoid an unfortunate precedent which might create similar hindrances in other States also.

Belgrade’s port authorities subject foreign vessels to double taxation, and exclude them from certain forms of international traffic because the landing facilities are on the Save, a territorial river, and not on the Danube. The great and growing business interests of Belgrade cannot afford to have their city thus advertised as a city which has not the same freedom of access to the Danube as is enjoyed by Vienna and Budapest. The future of Belgrade is too im portant to admit of such a limitation^ especially since the State appears to feel th a t little if anything is gained as a result of the action of the port authorities.

— 186 —

STATISTICS.

I t is recommended th a t adequate statistics of Danube traffic should be provided. These will be valuable to the States and the navigation companies and will be almost indispensable in reaching a sound conclusion as to how m uch money can be justifiably spent in carrying out anv comprehensive programme of river improvement.

DANUBE INTERNA TIO NA L COMMISSION.

The Report discusses the wrork of the Danube International Commission, the organ admi­nistering the Danube S ta tu te (which has been instituted by a convention among the States), for all the river except the m aritime pa rt below Braila. Considering the great difficulties which confronted the Commission’s work in the early years, it has accomplished substantial results. B ut the Commission has not yet been able to dispose of m any of the most im portan t problems which have been entrusted to its jurisdiction, and i t is suggested th a t the practice of repeated postponements of im portant questions should give way to the practice of taking a definite vote upon them . The Commission m ust decide by a two-thirds m ajority, bu t there are probably very few questions wrhere i t is not possible for two-thirds of the delegates to agree upon the broad principles, and, if so, then upon details as well.

DANUBE EU RO PEA N COMMISSION.

The European Commission, which has jurisdiction over the m aritime Danube from Braila to Sulina, was established in 1856. Before the war i t was slow to act to prevent the formation of shoals in the channel, and, by the time it could be reorganised after the war, the shoals had seriously interfered with navigation. The Commission then proceeded with reasonable dili­gence and has ju st been able to announce th a t the jetties have been extended in accordance with its plan, and the channel opened provides a depth of 22 feet. Roum ania has complained th a t the shallow7ness of the channel has greatly interfered with the export and im port business of Braila and Galatz. At least as much diminution of business is observable a t Constanza, another Roum anian port on the Black Sea. Hence the fundam ental causes cannot be connected wTith the Sulina channel, bu t are probably the general economic difficulties in Roumania, lessened exportable surplus of cereals, its heavy export tax on cereals and the difficulties of its railways in moving traffic. Complaint has also been made by Roumania as to the heavy dues imposed by the European Commission. The Commission has found it necessary to impose these dues, which are adm ittedly heavy, in order to pay for the improvement of "the channel, and there seems to be no practical alternative to this plan. Some suggestions are made as to possible economies th a t the Commission m ight be justified in taking into consideration.

EFFIC IEN C Y O F OPERATION.

I t is highly desirable, in view of the extremely difficult situation of Danube navigation, for the navigation companies to do everything in their power to improve their own efficiency. The question is raised whether they cannot secure more efficient performance of their barges and tugs than is now observable. Reference is m ade to the extraordinary results which have been accomplished in the United States by analogous efforts on the p a rt of the railways. There m ay be room for im portant economies in this direction. More efficient operation would be promoted by providing special telegraph facilities along all of the navigable river. The companies should also seek to co-operate more and utilise facilities in common, such as port facilities, shop facilities and also tug-boats, so as to avoid the w'aste of capital and labour involved in needless duplication. In A ustria and Hungary, especially, the existing port and

— 187 —

shop facilities seem much in excess of the needs of their own companies. Many of the tug­boats probably should be replaced by modern and more economical types. The question is raised whether there is not a great field for the building up of a profitable tourist passenger traffic.

MORE CO-OPERATION ON TH E PART OF STATE RAILWAYS.

The Danube, like any other transportation system, needs adequate feeders. In large part these feeders should be the railways, and therefore there ought to be rail-and-river through rates and bills of lading. A State making through rates with foreign railways loses all bene­fits from the traffic a t the frontier. W hen it makes through railway and river rates, the likeli­hood is th a t the bulk of the traffic will move in domestic boats to final destination and the State and its nationals will enjoy the entire profits of transportation. A t present, in m any instances, the railways seem to work against the Danube by establishing extremely low rates via other routes. More sympathetic attention to the just needs of the river should be given by the States and should be urged by the navigation companies.

EFFEC T OF DANUBE POLICY UPON GENERAL CREDIT O F TH ERIPA R IA N STATES.

The need of the riparian States for capital for public and private purposes is evident. I t is extremely difficult to get this capital a t reasonable rates. An im portant factor in this condition is the misgiving on the part of capitalists in other countries as to wThether a satisfac­tory state of international tranquillity exists and wrill continue in these Danube States. The Danube conditions themselves constitute an indication one way or the other in this m atter. If the States succeed in removing causes of friction on the Danube, th a t condition will be a favourable argum ent to encourage foreign capital. To the extent th a t friction continues in Danube m atters, the condition wrill be an indication in the wrong direction.