A portion of Article 11 reads: "It is understood that there shall be freedom for the passage of the subjects and goods of both powers across the Zambesi, and through the districts adjoining the left bank of the river situated above the confluence of the Shiré, and those adjoining the right bank of the Zambezi situated above the confluence of the river Luenha (Ruenga), without hindrance of any description and without payment of transit dues."[30] [Footnote 30: Ibid., p. 34] The only applicable portion of Article 12 says: "The Portuguese Government engages to permit and to facilitate transit for all persons and goods of every description over the water-ways of the Zambezi, the Shiré, the Pungwe, the Busi, the Limpopo, the Sabi and their tributaries; and also over the land ways which supply means of communication where these rivers are not navigable."[31] [Footnote 31: British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 83, p. 36.] The only other clause of the treaty which bears on the case is a portion of Article 14: "In the interests of both Powers, Portugal agrees to grant _absolute freedom of passage_ between the British sphere of influence and Pungwe Bay for _all merchandise_ of every description and to give the necessary facilities for the improvement of the means of communication."[32] [Footnote 32: Ibid., pp. 39-40. Italics our own.] It is obvious that Article 14 could not apply to anything more warlike than "_merchandise_" being transported from Pungwe Bay, where Beira is situated, to the British sphere of influence. It is admitted by Mr. Baty that Article 12 is inapplicable to any routes other than the water-ways specified and the land routes and portages auxiliary to them. It is also admitted that the only other stipulation that might apply, Article II, "obviously applies to the territory far to the north, and concerns the question of access to British Central Africa."[33] [Footnote 33: International Law in South Africa, p. 76.] Mr. Baty, however, contends that it was not a new right, that of passage through Portuguese territory, but was one created by this treaty. Upon the supposition that if the right still existed in times of war it must have been by virtue of Article II, he says, "The question arises, 'Was it such a grant as could be valid in war time?'"[34] [Footnote 34: Ibid., p. 76.]