WHO ARE THE HUNS?

64 Violation of the Neutral Suez Canal.
essential points of the Suez Canal Convention, thus annulling
the afore-mentioned reservation, this declaration not applying
only to France, but also to all the other Powers—to whom
the terms of the Anglo-French agreement were communicated.
The terms that apply to the regulations of war in regard to
the Suez Canal are therefore in every sense absolutely valid.
Ships of every nationality as well as their cargoes, are to
enjoy the right of entry in all ports, as well as exit from them,
also the right to traverse the Canal without incurring the danger
of seizure or delay—provided that they pursue their courses
in the usual way and without any undue delay. All ships are
entitled to coal at the bunkers and to secure other supplies in
so far as these are necessary for their voyage, etc.
Finally, it is contended that Article 13 (which, according
to British interpretations, permits England to undertake warlike
movements in Egyptian territory) was to be interpreted
in accordance with the Suez Canal Convention. If any significance
at all is to be attached to this, then as Triepel and others
rightly declare, it can only mean that no hostile act whatsoever
is to be undertaken in the Canal or its entrance harbors,
or within a distance of three sea-miles of its ports, since this
is expressly forbidden in the terms of the Convention.
Not even the "Times" would venture to deny that the
acts which England,—land of sacrosanct treaties!—committed
in this instance against German steamers, were hostile acts.
By taking away parts of the machinery of these vessels, as is
customary in acts of war, and by means of seizing or locking
the coal depots of the Germans, England had broken the most
important clauses of the Suez Canal Acts, and must acknowledge
the full force of these violations.
The International Commission, to be sure, which was to
supervise the carrying-out of the Suez Canal Agreement of
October 29, 1888, was superseded by Article 8 of the Second
Anglo-French Agreement of April 8th, 1904, so that England
might be able to exert force in place of equity. (See also von
Liszt, International Law, 6th edition, 1910, page 209.) But
the mere removal of the International Commission does not
in the least affect the rights which all nations are" entitled to
claim for their ships in the Suez Canal and its entrance ports.