BRAZIL.                         
            77

 voice-one agreement-between the parties to obtain from the state which should
come
,into possession of the island the consent to its neutrality in time of war.
If this be so,
then the clause of this article (referring Io :thleintorior- n'avigation)
is an improper one
to figure in an agreement treating of a political and commercial interest
of so much
magnitude as the non-interruption of free navigation of rivers. It should
have been
set forth in a manner at once clear, well defined, and obligatory.



                                  [Inclosure 3 in No. 148.]
 Extract from the treaty for the free navigation of the rivers Parana and
Uruguay, between
   the United States and the Argentine Confederation, concluded July 10,
1853, at San Jose de
   Flores. "

   Any. V. The high contracting parties, considering that the island of Martin
Garcia
 may, from its position, embarrass and impede the free navigation of the
confluents of
 the river Plate, agree to use their influence to prevent the possession
of the saidisland
 from being retained or held by any state of the river Plate, or its confluents,
which shall
 not have given its adhesion to the principle of their free navigation.





                                  [Inclosure 4 in No. 148.]
 Translation of Art. XVIII of the treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation
between
          Brazil and the Argentine Republic, signed at Parana March 7, 1856.

   ART. XVIII. The high contracting parties, recognizing that the island
of Martin Garcia
 may, by its position, embarrass and impede the free navigation of the confluents
of the
 river Plate, in which are interested all the Riverine States, as well as
the signers of the
 treaties of July 10, 1653, likewise recognize the convenience of the neutrality
of that
 island in time of war, whether said- war be carried on between the Platine
States, or
 between one of them and any other power, and this for the common good as
well as a
 guarantee of the navigation of said rivers; and they thdrefore agree:
   1st. In opposing, by all means, that the possession of the island of Martin
Gracia
 shall cease to belong to one of the Platine States interested in the free
navigatiou of
 the river.
   2d. In seeking to obtain from that state having possession of the island
an obliga-
 tion not to use it for the purpose of preventing the free navigation of
the rivers by
 other Riverine States, and the signers of the treaties of July 10, 1853
; and to obtain,
 also, its consent to the neutrality of the island in time of war, as well
as the formation
 of establishments necessary to the security of the interior navigation by
all the River-
 ine States and the nations embraced in the treaties of July 10, 1853.




                                   [Inclosure 5 in No. 148.]
 Translation of such parts of the report of the Brazilian minister for foreign
affairs for
   1860 as relates to negotiation8 concerning the neutralization of the island
of Martin Gar-
   cia, page ý20.
   Since the island of Martin Garcia may, by its position, serve to embarrass
and impede
 the free navigation of the confluents of the Plate, it became the object
of treaty stip-
 ulations between the Empire and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the
Argen-
 tihe Confederation.
   Those stipulations form a part of conventional law established by the
treaties of
 October 1, 1851, and March 7, 1856, and are set forth in Article XVIII of
each one of
 them.'
 The government of Buenos Ayres-which was in possession of Martin Garcia
when
 hostilities commenced between that province and the government of the confedera-
 tion, established at Parand, hostilities which&have happily just come
to an end, (in
 *The aim of this treaty, negotiated by Messrs. Schenek and Pendleton on
behalf of the United States
 was to determine the conditions of the free navigation of the rivers and
remove the obstacles which had
 previously impeded it.


. I : . ý;;,r           l1w,    -ý / ; ý           
                MONIER=