Volume IV - Annexes 58-136 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Document Number

171-20220308-WRI-01-03-EN

Parent Document Number

171-20220308-WRI-01-00-EN

Document File

171-20220308-WRI-01-03-EN.pdf

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING ARBITRAL AWARD OF 3 OCTOBER 1899 CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA GUYANA’S MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS VOLUME IV 8 March 2022

VOLUME IV ANNEXES MEMORANDA AND REPORTS Annex 58 Extract from a Report on Trinidad de la Guayana in reference to the Dutch Settlements on the Coast between the Amazon and the Orinoco, from Señor Don Antonio de Muxica, Deputy Governor of Santo Thomé de la Guayana, to His Majesty (25 June 1613) Annex 59 Report on Conditions for Colonies, adopted by the West India Company (the Nineteen) (22 Nov. 1628) Annex 60 Report from the Council of the Indies, to the King of Spain (8 July 1631) Annex 61 Memorandum by Don Juan Desologuren in Santa Fé, as to the Powers of the Dutch in the West Indies (19 Nov. 1637) Annex 62 Report of the Council of War to the King respecting the state of Guayana (10 May 1662) Annex 63 Memorandum on the Question of Boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela (Inclosure in Letter from Earl Granville to Señor de Rojas (15 Sep. 1881)) Annex 64 Venezuela Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memorandum by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela relative to the Note of Lord Salisbury to Mr Richard Olney, dated November 26, 1895, on the question of boundary between Venezuela and British Guayana (1896)
Annex 65 Annex 66 Annex 67 Annex 68 Annex 69 Annex 70 Annex 71 UnitedStates55thCongress,1stSession,ReportfromtheSecretaryofStateregardingtheWorkoftheSpecialCommissionAppointedtoReexamineandReportupontheTrueLinebetweenVenezuelaandBritishGuiana,TransmittedtotheU.S.SenateCommitteeonForeignRelations,Doc.No.106(25May 1897)Report of Counsellor DrRafael Seijas(4 May 1900)BritishGuiana,ReportoftheBritishCommissionersappointedtoDemarcatetheboundarybetweenthecolonyofBritishGuiana and the United Statesof Venezuela (8 Dec. 1900)MinistryofForeignRelationsofVenezuela,[Resoluciónde8dejuniode1903,porlacualsereconstituyelaComisiónVenezolanadelímitesconlaGuayanaBritánica]Resolutionof8June1903,creatingtheVenezuelaBoundaryCommission(8June 1903)BritishGuiana,RecommendationsoftheBoundaryCommissionersfortheAdoptionoftheLineoftheWatershedbetweentheCaroni,CuyuniandMazaruniRiverSystemsastheBoundarybetweentheSourceoftheWenamuRiverandMountRoraimainplaceofthe DirectLineMentionedintheAwardoftheArbitralTribunalofParis,Dated3rdOctober1899,BritishGuiana Combined Court, Annual Session (10 Jan. 1905)DepartmentofForeignAffairsofVenezeula,[ElLibroAmarillo:PresentadoalcongresoNacionalensussesionesde1911]TheYellow Book: Presented to the National Congressinits1907 Sessions (1911) (excerpt)MemorandumfromtheVenezuelanMinistryofForeignAffairs,No. 1638 (16 Dec. 1931) in Caracas despatch No. 51 (25 Dec. 1931)
Annex 72 Memorandum on British Guiana from Secretary of State Dean Rusk for President John F. Kennedy enclosing Action Program for British Guiana (12 July 1962) (excerpt) Annex 73 [Aide-Memoire presentado por el Dr. Marcos Falcón Briceño al Hon. R. A. Butler] Aide-Memoire presented by Marcos Falcón Briceño to the Hon. R.A. Butler (5 Nov. 1963) Annex 74 Hermann González Oropeza, S.J. & Pablo Ojer, [Informe que los expertos venezolanos para la cuestión de límites con Guayana Británica presentan al Gobierno Nacional] Report submitted by the Venezuelan Experts to the National Government on the Issue of the Boundaries with British Guiana(18 Mar. 1965) Annex 75 Sir Geoffrey Meade, Report on the Exposition presented by the Venezuelan Experts (3 Aug. 1965) Annex 76 Dr Ignacio Irabarren Borges, [Declaración del Dr Ignacio Iribarren Borges, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, la Conferencia Ministerial de Londres]Statement Made by Dr Ignacio Iribarren Borges, Venezuelan Foreign Minister, to the Ministerial Conference Held in London (9 Dec. 1965)
LAWS, AGREEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS Annex 77 Charter Granted by their High Mightiness the Lords the States-General to the West India Company (3 June 1621) Annex 78 Articles of the Peace of Münster (30 Jan. 1648) Annex 79 Articles of Capitulation of Demerara and Essequibo (18-19 Sept. 1803) Annex 80 British Guiana, Letters Patent constituting the Colony of British Guiana and appointing Major-General Sir Benjamin D’Urban, K.C.B., Governor (4 Mar. 1831) Annex 81 U.S. Congress, 53rd Session, Joint Resolution, H. Res. 252 (10 Jan. 1895) Annex 82 United States 54th Congress, Act of the United States Congress, Public Act No. 1 (21 Dec. 1895) Annex 83 United Kingdom, Brazil, Treaty Series No. 14, Treaty and Convention for the settlement of the Boundary between British Guiana and Brazil (22 Apr. 1926) (excerpt) Annex 84 Republic of Venezuela, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [Tratados públicos y acuerdos internacionales de Venezuela: 1920-1925] Public Treaties and International Agreements 1920-1925, Vol. III (1927) Annex 85 [Tratado General de Arbitraje Interamericano] General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration, O.E.A. (5 Jan. 1929), entered into force on 28 Oct. 1929
Annex 86 League of Nations, “Brazil and Venezuela: Exchange of Notes for the Execution of the Provisions regarding the Frontier Delimitation between the two Countries, contained in the Protocol signed at Rio-de-Janeiro, July 24, 1928. Caracas, November 7, 1929”, Treaty series: Publications of treaties and international engagements registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations (1930) Annex 87 Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Brazil approving the General Report of the Special Commissioners Appointed to Demarcate the Boundary-Line between British Guiana and Brazil, 51 U.K.T.S. 1946 (15 Mar. 1940) Annex 88 McQuillen & Brading, Minutes regarding the Venezuelan - British Guiana Boundary Dispute (10 Mar. 1944) (9 Sept. 1944)Annex 89 U.S. of Venezuela, [Ley orgánica de los Territorios Federales] Organic Federal Territories Law (14 Sept. 1948) Annex 90 Minutes and Documents from the Tenth Inter-American Conference (1-28 Mar. 1954) (excerpt) Annex 91 Ministry of Foreign Relations, Mixed Venezuelan-Brazilian Commission on the Demarcation of Boundaries, [Acta de la Cuadragesima Primera Conferencia] Minutes of the Forty-First Conference (1973) (excerpt) Annex 92 Federative Republic of Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “9.4 – BV-0 Mount Roraima Marker” Annex 93 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, First Brazilian Commission to Establish Borders, “8.1 – Brazil – Guyana –Venezuela Tri-Border Area (Mount Roraima)”
Annex 94 Petition to the Noble and Mighty Lords the States-General of these United Provinces concerning the Population of the Coasts of Guiana situated in America (undated) Annex 95 Bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezeula, [Acta de Inaguración de dos hitos Venezolano-Brasileros en el Monte Moraima] Act of Inaguration of two Venezuelan-Brazilian Boundary Marks on Mount Roraima
ORAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1899 ARBITRATION Annex 96 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, First Day’s Proceedings (25 Jan. 1899) Annex 97 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Second Day’s Proceedings (15 June 1899), pp. 6-9 Annex 98 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Second Day’s Proceedings (15 June 1899), pp. 17-25 Annex 99 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifteenth Day’s Proceedings (21 July 1899), p. 867 Annex 100 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), p. 1119 Annex 101 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), p. 1124 Annex 102 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (12 Aug. 1899), p. 1170 Annex 103 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Twenty-Eighth Day’s Proceedings (12 Aug. 1899), p. 1737
Annex 104 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Twenty-Eighth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), pp. 1761-1762 Annex 105 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Second Day’s Proceedings (25 Aug. 1899), p. 1999 Annex 106 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Second Day’s Proceedings (25 Aug. 1899), pp. 2011-2012 Annex 107 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Third Day’s Proceedings (26 Aug. 1899), p. 2063 Annex 108 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Fourth Day’s Proceedings (28 Aug. 1899), pp. 2119-2120 Annex 109 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Fifth Day’s Proceedings (29 Aug. 1899), p. 2149 Annex 110 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Forty-Third Day’s Proceedings (8 Sept. 1899), p. 2595 Annex 111 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fiftieth Day’s Proceedings (19 Sept. 1899), pp. 2981-2985 Annex 112 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-First Day’s Proceedings (20 Sept. 1899), p. 3014
Annex 113 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-First Day’s Proceedings (20 Sept. 1899), pp. 3024-3025 Annex 114 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-Second Day’s Proceedings (22 Sept. 1899), pp. 3087-3097 Annex 115 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-Fifth Day’s Proceedings (27 Sept. 1899), p. 3233 Annex 116 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-Sixth Day’s Proceedings (3 Oct. 1899), p. 3238
WRITTEN PLEADINGS OF THE 1899 ARBITRATION Annex 117 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 18 Annex 118 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 54-55 Annex 119 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 66 Annex 120 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 144 Annex 121 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 14 Annex 122 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 35-36 Annex 123 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 54-55 Annex 124 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 71-75
Annex 125 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 163 Annex 126 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 179 Annex 127 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 220-221 Annex 128 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 229 Annex 129 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 231 Annex 130 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Counter-Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 6-7Annex 131 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Counter-Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 130Annex 132 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Argument on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 2-3Annex 133 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 21-22
Annex 134 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 32-57 Annex 135 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. II, p. 719 Annex 136 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. II, pp. xvii-xix
Annex58Extract from a Reporton Trinidad de la Guayana in reference to the Dutch Settlements on the Coast between the Amazon and the Orinoco, from Señor Don Antonio de Muxica, Deputy Governor of Santo Thomé de la Guayana, to His Majesty (25 June 1613)

Annex 58

Annex59Reporton Conditions for Colonies, adopted by the West India Company (the Nineteen) (22 Nov. 1628)

Annex 59
Annex 59
Annex 59
Annex 59
Annex 59

Annex60Reportfrom the Council of the Indies, to the King of Spain (8 July 1631)

Annex 60
Annex 60
Annex 60

Annex61Memorandumby Don Juan Desologuren in Santa Fé, as to the Powers of the Dutch in the West Indies (19 Nov. 1637)

Annex 61
Annex 61
Annex 61
Annex 61
Annex 61
Annex 61
Annex 62 Report of the Council of War to the King respecting the state of Guayana (10 May 1662)

Annex 62
Annex 62
Annex 62
Annex 62
Annex 62
Annex 62
Annex 62

Annex 63 Memorandum on the Question of Boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela (Inclosure in Letter from Earl Granville to Señor de Rojas (15 Sep. 1881))

Annex 63
Annex 63
Annex64Venezuela Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Memorandum by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela relative to the Note of Lord Salisbury to Mr Richard Olney, dated November 26, 1895, on the question of boundary between Venezuela and British Guayana(1896)

Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex 64
Annex65United States 55th Congress, 1st Session, Report from the Secretary of State regarding the Work of the Special Commission Appointed to Reexamine and Report upon the True Line between Venezuela and British Guiana, Transmitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Doc. No. 106 (25 May 1897)

Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65
Annex 65

Annex66Reportof Counsellor Dr Rafael Seijas (4 May 1900)

Annex 66
Annex 66
Annex 66
Annex 66
Annex 66

Annex67British Guiana, Report of the British Commissioners appointed to Demarcate the boundary between the colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela(8 Dec. 1900)

{m'hll'lmu‘l HI |
3314th HAHN».
N. N l’ U R. 'i‘ \
uh‘
TINA [BRITISH UHMA‘IISSIUNNRH
M‘NHN‘l‘NH 'm
D E M A lWA'I‘l'} 'l‘lH'} BO H N I) A IN
Nahum“ Hm (‘uluuv ul‘ lerh-Ih thum. mul
Mm Ilium! Mum nl‘ memmln.;
mm mm m n w m: mu N
DIARY N“ THE HA”) OUMMIHHIUNMRS.
PAWI‘ !|
i
W- . ~. “a
Drum» m; “hi Mlburnu “I” Mcvllmuu mo «\mmum
'8
momma N'l‘t)wN. “NM IMAM:
\0. K. “mum. muN'I‘Nu'm '|‘t||\l mwunmwm m“ mum“ mnmm
‘ mm.
“W [M‘h
Annex 67
\o—«s.
MURURUMA CREEK,
8th December, 1900.
a esumé of the doings of the Commissioners since
0mmissioners, in the gunboat General Orespo at
er, 1900. ‘
nezuelan C
Georgetown on the 13th Novemb
2. The General
November, and the Venezuelan Co
.lency’s Aide-de-Camp and Private
tor Kerr, Captain Cecil May,
Consul Senor Argia.
_ Demerara. at 4: p.m., on the 13th mnnssioners were met shortly after by His Excel-
Secretary, Captain Feilden, Senior County Inspecand
Mr. Commissioner Widdup, as also the Venezuelan
3. The 'gentlemen comprising the Venezuelan Commissioners, are:—
Senor Felipe Agnerrevere, Engineer-in-Chief.
,, Santiago Aguerrevere, lst Assistant Engineer.
,, Abraham Tirade, , 2nd Assistant Engineer.
,, Trino Celis Rios, Legal Adviser. ' _
,, Dr. Elias Tore, Medical omcer. '
,, Lorenzo M Osio, Draughtsman. ‘
,, Gustave Michelena, Interpreter.
4s. The Venezuelan Commissioners were received by His Excellency the Acting
‘Governor, at Government House, at 10.30 a.m., 141th ultimo, Sciiors Aguerrevere (2)
and Abraham Tirado afterwards met the English Commissioners McTurk, Baker
and Widdup at Eve Leary Barracks, their credentials were exhibited, and a general
outline of after operations agreed on. In the evening. the Commlssroners (hnglish
and Venezuelan) were entertained at dinner by His Excellency at Government
House. '
. ‘ . ‘ rs Baker and Widdup left Georgetown in the Steamcr Pei:- mrtfanccigi'uihsgizlsviianna on the 15th, and Mr. Commissioner McTui-k left later In
the day in the sloop Baridie, after assisting the Venezuelan Commissmners in rating
'Chronometers at the Lighthouse.
V ember, the Enolish Commissioners were all at Morawhannn :awaitfihgo 11;: 631132111; Sir the Venezuelatn Commrssroners in the General Orespo off
the mouth of the Waini. '
- r. CommiSsioners Mc'l‘urk. Widdup and Perkins'left Morazvhggnhhiolgigeiiqzhenlifnezuelan Commissioners OE the mouth of the W mm
as lreviousl named on. Captain Baker went to the glururuma to clear a pln'co at 'thepmouth if that Creek. At the mouth of the V‘Vaini Commrssxoner hicl‘iirk
remained in the Bm‘idie to await the arrival of the (:enel'al Crespo, Nessa. “ 1dall
and Perkins going on in the launch to Pouit. llaya. The Gi-nerali Céespo arrived if t1 Wainivat 3 p.m., and was met and piloted off Pomt P :1an y om-
' ' 0 1e k ' the sloop Baridie. Both vessels anchored OE Pomt Playo.
ESE): E:lricidécrrlil‘omlillllissioners Widdup and Perkins also remained in the launch.
a .
Annex 67
~W‘-,.n
CO. HI / 522
TO MT'strsoouunmooIocsAMICAEiEWELTW‘QuI2mm
4:
8. The Commissioners mot ut Point Plays. on 20th, after a. perilous landing
"hm
through “l” “ma “ml l’r‘5i’m'fltions worn mode by tho Venezuelan Commissionors for
tukllnlg ulstronomloul obsorvutions during the coming night. Commissionoru M o'i.‘urk nm ‘2' roturnod on board of tho Ilaridit! um] loft for Moruwhunno, lonving
Commissioner Wnldnp to uttond tho Vonoznolnn Commissioners.
_ i). The Vononuolun Commissionors snocoodod in taking observations during tho night of_ tho 20th and morning of 21st November, sull'oring vory oonsidorublo
Incom'onlouco from tho numorous sumliiios um] mosquitoes. After ugnin pnssing
through “"3 “Mi. they nod Commissionor Widdup urrivod on bourd of tho inunoh
Ill) 11 u.ll|..und left for Moruwhnnnu. Tho lim'idir: was mot in tho M or". mssngo
and towed u l to tho llnrimu, urriving thoro at t limo. Simuihtmmusly witl thoir'
mural the moral drama was soon stouming up t In lhn'imu.
10. The Connnissionors, English nod Vonozuoinn, ussumod possossion ol' the
Government Olilcors' Quarters for thoir uccomnlodution whilo oi. Mormvhnnnn.
Commissioner linker urrivod st 8 um. on 22nd, lowing oomplotod tho clouringut the
mouth of tho Murnrumu Creek and oloarod a portion of tho Crook.
. 11. The googruphicul position of Point illuyu on agreed. on by tho Commismonors
(English and Vonozuoiun) won Luiitudo 8'7315’ 22” North and Longitude
69" 50' 4.8” West of (lrcouwioh. The position us oomputod by Mr. Commissionor
Mc"urk and Lieutenant Slums oi ll.M.H. William previously, won lmtitmio-
8° 33’ 25” North and Longitudo 50” 60’ West, thus (lili’oring ii” in Lutitudo and
ii" in Longitude.
12. On 24th Novombor, It forms! document, in duplioulo, was druwn up and
signed, boih in English and Spanish. by tho English Commissioners mud hy Honor
Felipe Aguorrovoro sud Trim Coils ltios, Vonozuolun (ionnnmsionors, in which the
geogruphionl position oi" Point l.’luyu Win: doliniioiy recorded and agreed on,
copies wore sont to tho lionourublo tho Actmg (lovornmont Secretary.
13. On tho 25th Commissioner Mo’l‘urk lol't for Mururumu sitar ruting
chronomotors. On the 20th tho other English Commissitmors urrivod st Mururnnm
at 8.4a!) nan. Commissioner llukor wont on to iluiown, Amuouru ltivnr, to clonr u”,
ennui at tho mouth of tho crook. ’l‘ho (hm/owl Crimp” with tho Vonosuolnn
missionors urrivod st 12.30 p.m. The Commissionors worn, lodgod in tho housonearly
opposite to tho Mururumu Crook lurod by Commmsnmor Mio'l.‘urk for the
purpose. Tho General Grasp!) lol'tut D p.m. Monsont in ciour u pussugo up the
creek.
14. Commissionors M o'l'urk sud Suntlugo Aguorrovoro went up tho Mururnma
on the 27th Novomhor, us for us tho dopth oi, wutor would ullow. BO burrnls of
stone, 10 of mud nod ll of omnont rocoivud ox sloop Ifypatia,
Iii. Tho mun worn omployod olonring tho troos from the side oi.‘ tho linrimn,
clearing tho view to tho M‘ururumu crook.
16. Commisssionm- ‘llnknr roturnod from the Amuouru. having mode a clearing
at the mouth of tho liuiowu crook.
17. On 1st llomnnhor, tho MPH ongugml in olouring u pussngo up tho Mumrunm
returned ro mrting tho uppor purl. of tho crook us vorlv shallow. 'Ulhor own Worn
ongugnd in winging tho stone nod mud norms h"’i"." no mouth oi tho Mururunm
crook, us it WM dooidc-d by mombors of both Commissioner” to piuoo'lho borrow on tho
loft hunk of tho ilnrinm in lino With lllu- oontro ol tho (:itagk'lillli' hunt Vinyl...
Vonnzuolun lubourors outting tho line In tho dlrootmn oi iomt l lays,
mon worn ugnin sont to oontinuo tho oiouring of tho Mum.
. i Mi tho _ 18 ()n he ‘ l Vonozuolun labourers wore digging and luymg l'oundution
rum». crook, iingliuh um
\\
Annex 67
(I.
of the boundary beacon.
woe surveying the Mururul
19. Commissioner Me'i‘ur
(liens left at m'dd 5th 1’ ti . . _ n 1 my on , or the head :f‘otlllgdfum Wm?" 010018 Mon employed on boundary beacon. J t is 3ft. 6in. above
20. On 0th Commissioner Me ‘ ' 3 p.m., and found its source in a wet savmm ih ' ' '
indirection of Point Pinyin. under direction ér'c Labourers employed cuttmb hue
_ 21.3..'l‘i10 boundm'ybeneon completed 7th. It rests on a solid foundation and its position as u reed on by tho'O'ommissionors is latitude 8° 18’ 53”'41 north, longi.
ururuma, being latitude
.23. Men still clearing line in direction of Point Pleya on 7th. Mr. Commissionor
Mo’i‘urk returned at D p.m., I '
nwmg left the head of the creek at 8.55 am. The boundary beacon bears the f 0110 ' ' '
_ wmg inscription on its sides; on the cast, Brit- ish Gumno, and on the west, EE: UH do Vene’
.alsoinseribed on its ends. Mr. W. H. McTurk,rucwlhao. haIdts lelfattiftourdeGeaonrdgeltoonwgintuodne tahree
19th inveiided,returned well. ‘
24.. For further detail. please see copy of diary attached.
I" have,
(Syd) MICHAEL MoTURK,
Senior Commissioner.
The Honouroble
The Acting GOVT. Seenemnr.
T
.
., , Annex 67
PYRIGHT: NOT 7‘5‘u'i:s'crs<osu,cm «weroo“Multistifjwmmiimli; "
_. .__ ' Z -- “
r “quills-u" “M. . , . . ,‘
C0. J .
A, I
w“ r. ,1.
'
Corr or run Dust or run Boosmur Conmmossns mm: are 'r0 2!”
‘Oorousn, 1900.
¢ , 1
It
._ October Gan—Mr. Mc'l‘urk and Captain Baker left Georgetown in i[.M.B.
Tribune, Captain Rolleston, [it 12.30 pm. for Point Plays.
. October. OWL—The Tribune nnchored st 11 um. Wnini 'l’oint bearing South,
’ distant 7 miles. At 1.80 .m. Mr. Mc’i‘urk, Captain ltolleston end Lieutonont
Sunms, left the Tribune or the urpose oi locnting Point 'l’loyo—for luck ot‘
} local knowledge they failed to find t 10 Point and returned nt 7 pm.
October 7th.-- At 5.30 am. Mr. Mc’i‘urk end Lieutenant Bimms left the ' '
Tribune in the steam launch for Morewhunne. Returned at 5.1.5 pm. with i
3 Mr. Cox, the Acting Magistrate at Morowlmnnn, after huving urrunged with some '
fishermen resident in the locality to meet them at Point Plays to-morrow. 1
Tribune in the Steam launch towing a hattcou brou ht from Georgetown to loud
in at Point Plays. As agreed on, they met the ilsrermen, who with Mr. Cox,
pointed out Point Plays. During the night Messrs. Mc’llurk and Bimms determined
the Latitude (8° 33’ 25” North) by stellar observations under very unfavourable
circumstances of weather.
October Win—This morning Messrs Mc'i‘urk and Bimms determined the Longi.
tude of Point Pluya (59° 59’ 48”'5 West.) The party in the buttenu wcre afterwards
towed of? to the ship, arriving on board at noon. The Tribune lento:
Demerara at 3 pm.
October 10tb.—The Tribune anchored off the Demerum Light Ship at 4 pm.
October I I th.—Commissioners in Georgetown. Messrs. Mc’i‘urk do Simms took
observations at Lighthouse to rate Chronometcrs.
October 8th.-—At 9.80 n.m., Messrs, Mc’i‘urk, Bimms and Cox left the 1
l
l
l
l
-
October 12th.—Boundnry Commissioners‘left Demororu in T'tbrmc for Point
Plays having in tow a Public Works Punt containing materials, for erecting
the prioposcd mark at Point Plays, and also a butteuu for landing the some.
-
October 13tb.-—At noon, the Tribune anchored oil‘ Point Pinyin—4, mu,”
distant The Punt was sent in shore. Later in the day the Punt was visited by the
Commissioners and Captain Rolleston, end her safety assured of .
\\
. ,—At :1, n.m., the Commissioners with Lieutennnt Bimms left the
ship Zitihzstgriitn launch for Moruwhnnnn and Mururumo Creek. OH orriynl at ,
Morawhnnno, a number of men were engaged to unlond the punt and {insist in the l
or ectiof n otfhisthe "mwaargke oinn tPhoeinTtribPulnaey'ss. laMurn.ch Caotmmmiisds-idouny.er ’i'lniknlknye;r tlhoeft(lWoivtehrmtnheenste a o. ,1
Eggchoer' Cgmmission‘” Mc'rur-k, Lieutenants Simms, lilgg-Wither, end llyde, l
went down the liurima to Mururumu (Jreek to determine its position. 'lhm night l
was cloudv, with rain at intervals, and no observations could be token. ,
October pith—On this night the latitude of Murummu Creek was obtained.
(8° 13' 55” '1 North.)
October [gm—The local mean time at Mururumn was obtained. The latitude
, ,, . H” ritude (59" 4,3’ 51,” West.) of Momwhnnnu we» determined. 8° 17 0,? N)rtil}l),,n?,i,rt;lu-left Morawhunnu in the Government launch for Wuini
At. 12'3 pm" there at 2,30 p.m. Its position (latitude ’5' 215' iii' North, longi.
33ml, gang/"€65 West) was determined by solar and stellar observations. At. u e o -
9 15 pm. the party left for the Tribune,
-—
Annex 67
.7
A :1
r‘
\ ‘ 7
rvers arrived on board the Tribune at 1.30 am. At 5
m launch left to bring off Mr. Commissioner Baker
- th 1 l ark on Point Plays. Mr. Commissioner MeTurk went
in e {tuner and found the mark completed and returned with the shore party at
i
l
i
l
i
. -‘ K.‘ .
' i 1115 The men from Morawhannn. were then transferred to the Government
i
launch, and with the batteau in tow left for their homes. At noon the Tribune
left for Georgetown.
October 18th.'—The Tribune arrived off the Demerara Lightship at 5.38 a.m.
. October 196h.——Com.missioners in Georgetown, Mr. Commissioner MeTurk took sights at, Lighthouse to rate chronometers.
October 20th.—Commissioners in Georgetown, Mr. Commissioner McTurk made
out Report. ‘ ‘ '
October 2Ist.—Commissioners in Georgetown.
Oqtober 22nd.—Commissioners in Georgetown. Report sent in to the Hon’ble '
the Acting Government Secretary. ‘
October 23rd.—Mr. Commissioner Baker-in Georgetown; Mr. Commissioner
Mc’l‘urk left Georgetown for Kalacoon.
October 24th.—Mr. Commissioner Bakerin Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner
Mo'l‘urk arrived at Kalncoon.
October 25th.—Mr. Commissioner Bakerin Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner
McTurk at Kalacoon. 1
1 October 26th.—Mr. Commissioner Baker in Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner
! Mo'l‘urk at Kalacoon. . I,
3 Certified 8. true copy, ' I
.1. ' j.
(Sgd.) MICHAEL MoTURK. .
Senior Commissioner. ' ' ‘
i ~ '
1 . A. W. BAKER, . ,
I Commissioner. - i
[I
CONTINUATION .or was Orrxonu. DIARY or THE Vsmszunmu Bounmmr
' Coumssrounns.
“\\ ‘
,
October 27th—Mr. Commissioner Baker in Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner
MoTurk at Kaleooon. .
' ' ' ' Georvetown. Mr. commissioner
October 28th—Mr. Commussxoner Balm In a
McTurk left Kolucoon at 10.40 mm. for Georgetown.
?
I
i
i
i ' M ’1‘ k ' d ' G to o 1-
_ tI—Mr.Commissxonor. c ur- arrive‘ in. eorge Wu. n tus.
4 day autitlzevi‘higwfes sent to Mr. Comm‘SSIO‘W“ MoTurk calling him to Georgetown.
. a -
October 3OIh—Commissioners in Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner MoTur-k
too}: sights at the Lighthouse to rate chronometers. . _
October Blot—Meeting of Commissioners, Guiana Public Buildings.
Annex 67
PUBLIC K
Ruler-neu- w
(40- “I/ 522. ,
OP” IGHT . — NOT 1- 0 LE REPRQDV—QEP PH.0;T_6GR‘AP’H"_M Ly 1 -‘ . i ”
., “ TmW_’
r
B ':
Nave tbc I t— _ . - . '
\mission. {3:1er ofnmgsoiotny D" “Vlmhlp and Mr. Perkins were added to the Coni- :
.31“ Commissioner- Bah malt/{net at 11 mm. Present: Mr. Commissioner licTur'k, i
Perkins. * 01. r. ‘Commissmner Widdup, Mid Mr. Commissioner ' J . \
November 2nd—Meeting of Commissioners 1180 i
- . . . . ~ ' . n.m. Present: Mr. Com-
Cliifiiiglilf“ AWE??? Mr. Commissioner Baker, Mr. Commissioner Widdup and Mr.
th H .smunci X or \lllS. Copy of Diary rind expenses up to 26th October sent in to i
C e 0.11.. [Of ctmg Government Secretary. Letter containing instructions for the I\fmmissmnms nod forwarding n. copy of the Commission sent to Dr. VViddup and 1‘. Feikiiis, received and acknowledged.
\m _ November {shut—Commissioners in Georgetown. Mr. Commissioner Mc’l‘urk f"
and Mr. Commissmner Perkins attended at tho ofIico of the Public Buildings.
November 4th—Commissioners in Georgetown. ‘ '
.JVooember (Stir—Mr. Commissioner McTurk took sights at the Lighthouse to
rate chronometers. ,3.
November Wit—Commissioners in Georgetown. .
November 7th— Do.
November 8th—Mr. Commissioner Perkins loft Georgetown for Morawhnnnn,
taking stores for the Commissioners and two batteaux’. - ' - j
. , ,v
November Wit—Commissioners in Georgetow'n.
‘Nooember 10th— Dc.
November- 11M— Do. .
I November 12th—Mr. Commissioner Mc'l‘urk took sights to rate clii'onometors.
Commissioners Baker and Widdup attended at the office at the Public Buildings.
b r ISM—Venezuelan Commissioners arrived oil? liort in Grunhoot " 7‘ Ge;1£;egrecspo nt 4: p.m. They were met on arrival by Cnpt.Feildcn, A.1).C.,
3 Private Secretary to the Governor; Mr. Commissioner VViddup, Inspector Ken-
| (Senior Countv Inspector); Capt. Cecil May rind Capt. li‘enton, also the Venezuelan
: ' Consul, Sonr. ‘Arginv- The Venezuelan Commissmn consists of the followmgz— l .i
‘ Sent. Felipe Agucrrevere—Enginccr-iii-Chief. , '_ f ,, Santiago Aguerrevere~lst Asst. Engineer. V
. ‘ , " Abraham Tirade—2nd Asst. Engineer.
” Trina Celis Rios—Legal Adviser. ’ r"
. ,, Elias Toro—hIediciil Officer. [a
. ., Lorenzo M. Osio, Dmughtsmnn. i
‘ . Gustave M. Michelenn—Interpreter. - ~ 5
I,
November 14tIi-—Venczueliin Commissioners were received by the Governor at . ‘ L Subso uentl , at 1.8_0 p.m., three of their J
Government H_°u%e‘l?te {gigosxgtingo Agugrrcveizi imd Abraham Tirade, met and h i
number—b01317" uh pr Commissioners. ‘NIc'L‘ui'k, Baker and \Viddup, at r’ consulted W“ I -1-mt‘nls liven: exchanged and n. genernl outline of the line of opera-
{CVO Iml'tm (SELLLII‘1I: In the evening the Commissioners (Venezuelan and English) , ions was .5 ' . ‘ ' o i
i were entertained at Government House to dinner.
Annex 67
9
,
November: lath—Commissioners Baker an
Penworlhan for Morawhauna. Commission
I 51901).“ During the morning the
‘ 3.; L . misSioncrs to arrange their chron
leaving. The Venezuelan Co ' ' ' ‘ '
‘Commissioners'in front of Poi lEmissmners Will start on baturday to meet Engllsh
d Widdup left Gear etown in s. s.
or McTurk started latergin the Baridie
chained, assisting the Venezuelan Comometers.
Chronometers rated at lighthouse before
i
i Playa.
1 November JGCh—CommiSSioners Baker 3. d W dd
, . d at Morawhanna. at
11 a.m., and were met b C n ~ 1 up arrire -
i, Oflicers’ Quarters. y o nmissmner Perkins They pioceeded to the Pubhc
November Nth—Commission
Al. and 2 Pm Arranoe er McTurk arrives in.tlie Baridie, between 1 . \ \ . . o m
_ cuts were made to meet the Venezuelan Commissioners at Pomt Playa on Monday, the 19th instant. Meanwhile Commissioner Baker was to
proceed to Mururuma to clear certain portions of land.
November IBM—Commissioners employed labourers for the 19th instant.
i
’1' November 19th—Commissioner Mc'l‘urk left in the .Baridie at 6 a.m., Commissioner
Baker at 6.30 a.ni. and Commissioners Widdup and Perkins started in the
the Baridie through the Mora passage. The Baridie was overtaken close to the
entrance of the Mora and towed as far as the Waini point. The Venezuelan gun
boat was not in sight. Commissioners Widdup and Perkins proceeded in the steam
. launch, taking with them the surf boat, as far as Point Playa. Having landed
use" there, they remained there until 3.30 p.m., and as the other Commissioners had not
‘ yet arrived, they returned to the steam launch and went to find a safer anchorage
at a place nearer to the Waini mouth. At 4 p.ni., they perceived in the. distance
I the masts of the General Crespo and the Baridie in company. Steaming in the
direction they spoke to Commissioner McTurk, who instructed them to anchor
outside and facing Point Playa. They remained there for some time and perceivinc
that the General Orespo and.Bm-idie had both anchored for. the night,
th: men were sent on shore in the surf boat to remain until morning, and the
steam launch went to its former position and there anchored.
i steam launch at 6.45 a.m., to overtake Commissioner Mc’l‘urk and, if necessary, tow
l
l
1
J . .
‘r November. 20th—The Bandit! lay in deep water about 2 miles off Pomt
Playa Commissioners Widdup and Perkins went in the steam launch close to the '
' ' , of the men in the surf boat. They returned about £02161t and 2:311:11): ta): 633mgssioners went on shore in the boat to await the arrival
of tliglgthaer Commissioners, meanwhile the steam launch proceeded to the General
- - m' 'oner McTurk and Venezuelan Coni-
_ O’ 3 re mud took off Com ism _
"NP migieii‘lsaé'g‘irp’uée and Santiago Aguei-revei'c, and Tirado. These, after ex-
, . . - t ith the surf, succeeded in-landing at 9 am. The Peneni1n§15§n§ggzbi1§ igiiiggnyg Commissioners McTurk and Baker on a former concre e , ‘ ‘
- , r the Venezuelan Commissioners to-
- - - , - aratmns “ere made bl , . 'Waa]::fi:§%at Eight Playsi to take observations. As accommodation on land -. — remain D
\‘u
1' 't d Commissioners Mc’l‘urk and rerkins went on board the Baridie, leaving agingnlilslsihrier Widdup to attend the Venezuelans.
‘ a cloudy one up to a late hour. The annoyance
November 2133;1ih2n1c‘llgrlifosl1iiitoes was intense. It was 3 o'clock am. before
suffered from san atilffISJS‘could be taken. At 8.30 sun observaltiolilis We? Elena A:
mtISfaCt'OT." observ - ' ers went on board the Steam Launc , ‘avmg aw i p .
ll a.m., the CummlSSlon ugh the surf. The result of twelve observa—
rienced great difficulty in getting thro
-, ‘ lions was the following :-— o I, ’ I ' C mmissioners determination of latitude—g. g; :3 g
, Englishelatl)1 . do. do. 8: 33- 22 N.
Xdihiizllatitude decided upon
i
V - ‘\ E
i
I
i
l
..
Annex 67
Cl
7.7 , . CopYRIGHT—NOT To m‘w‘“ N
u
.
C:O-III /‘5*22
/
391% "P H or
W"‘ , ~ - OQMEETM
\
10
The Baridie was met
proceeded in a body to Moi‘lxiitho mouth of the More. passages.“ the Commissioners
vhnnna - ' . - . . General Orespo steaming up the Bariiiililmlmnmualy mm the“. arrival was seen the
November 22nd.—Commissioner Baker arrived at B a ' .
_ H - .m.w1ththoi‘ollowm .m - 1 9113831114— 191th Nov. —Left for Miiriiruma at 6.415 mm. with ten men to cleargtliiitlmih
“ t in meat i of the creek for Sight-taking, and raising the Beacon. Engaged three
” git re men to clear the creek. 20th Nov.—-Clearim land, three men clearing creek. \ 1st Nov.—-Wont up the Mururuma creek in Corial at 5.30 am, returned at
“ p.m—-all the men (except 2 wrth me) clearing the creek. Venezuelan gunboat passed at 3.16 pm. 22nd Now—Left for Morawhanna at 0 am.”
_' Venezuelan and En lish Oomm' ' ' ' b ' '
the following result :_ 8‘ issionors engaged in comparing 0 servntions With
0 I I
Longitude determined 59' 59' 418 W. in Are.
u 3' 59. 59.2 in time.
November 23rd.—-Oommissioners (British and Venezuelan) engaged in rating
Chronometers. A severe thunderstorm during the morning. followed by heavy rain.
November 24tl¢.—A document was drawn up fixing the latitude and longitude
of Point Plays. as being the boundary limit on the Coast line between Venezuela
'and British Guiana, a translation was made in English, the Original in Spanish.
These documents were signed in duplicate by the English Commissioners and by
.Seiiors F. Aguerrevero and Rios on the part of the Venezuelan Commissioners, alter
- which they were exchanged, the English document and the Spanish duplicate
being sent to the Governor. Commissioner Baker with a beat’s crew went to the
Mururuma creek at 5.45 a.m., returning at 4.4.5 p.m., and reported himself to the
1st Commissioner on board, the Bm'z'die having proceeded up the Creek as far as
possible.
November 25tk—Commissioner McTurk proceeded to Mururnma in the Ban-idle
at 11.30 a.m. The morning was passed rating chronometors.
' ' s Baker, Widdu and Perkins roccedcd to
November iggl—a%m?viiiio:$am launch and tlliroe boats. They) arrived at
Mururuma at; 8.45. am. and crossed the river to where the Barid-ie was
Mururuma a1 '1 vere met by Commissioner Me'i‘urk and lodged in the house
anchored. TieyI ‘21, n holdinrrn grant in front of the Mururuma Creek, on the
of 0110 Jose, Dml I,i3liiima Riveci'. Half an hour afterwards Commissmner Baker
riglitbnnkofiimlg’lt,s crew to the Blown Creek, going by the Barium and Procecdcd WI“ RA) boat and six men were despatched at 10 awn. to clear a passage
Amaeul'n route Creek‘ At 12.30 pm. the General Orespo arrived and
up the Mufuruma Ian. Commissioners were put on shore, tents were put up
anchored. ’lhe Ventizae At 6 p.m. the General Crespo started for lrimdad.
and their; store}; 1|?égl‘c11‘1nrrlish and Venezuelan Commissmners were engaged taking
During re mg ‘7
observations from the stars.
‘ - ' 'oner Mo'l‘urk and Venezuelnn Commis-
November 27th—jhngéfgl\igiijilbmdifsiahe Mnrurumn Creek us far as could be
-sioncr Santiago Agllcl‘f? chanlred they were Obligod to return as thelre was not
reached. When the tucThoy intro unable to overtake the men all-em y silm'uIii
water to no:ltth?§“:?1:1anded and stores put under the, house. Stone an ball
Cement (6 barre s '
received per sloop Itypatia.
V
-.. t’
"K
r‘
Annex 67
"Na-r PUBLIC R K H: ‘I ..- _
_ - k l) .
COP
«it
i
l
l
‘ r
g,
2,.
A
YRIGHV‘ “0‘ ‘0»rMmdb‘ioéifimmuv w
’v‘é— “‘ ‘ -,
/‘5”22.
I
11‘
November 29th.—’l‘he latitude and longitude decided. at Jose's Grant were as
follows :—. _ . . . . . I
O I I;
Latitude— 8 18 56 north : result of 25 observations.
Longitude—69 48 30 west.
h. m. s.
= 3 59 14. in time.
November 30th.—Commissioner Baker returned from Hiawu at 8 pm. -
December Ist.—All Commissioners at Jose’s house. The gang sent up the
Mururuma Creek on the 26th ult. returned at 4: pm. They went up the Creek as
far as the water would allow them, but did not arrive at its head. Towards the
west they saw two hills of moderate elevation. They observed certain plants growing
on the banks which usually indicate the proximity of savannah. A second
gang was engaged in bringing stone from the mouth of the Mururuma Creek for
the purpose of building a beacon on this side of the river at a place agreed upon.
The Venezuelan gang were engaged in clearing a line on the north western side of
Jose’s farm, in the direction of Point Playa. Commissioner Perkins went to
Morawhanna to post letters.
December 2nd.—Commissioner Perkins arrived from Morawhanna. All the
Commissioners at Jose’s farm—A few of the men complain of intestinal disorders.
December 3rd.-—Eight of the men refused to turn out to work this morning
complaining that their wages had not yet been paid them, and that the quantity
of food served them was insuiiicient. Four hands were sent up the Mururuma Creek ‘
to continue clearing—to its head, if possible. _Fivo men together with the Vene.
zuelans are making preparations for the erection of the beacon. Commissioner‘
Widdup went to Mornwhanna. .
December 4th.—Hands engaged in making foundations for beacon. Others in
clearing away the brushwood in front. Commissioner \Viddup returned from _
Morawhanna with money for paying the hands. Those who struck work were not
re-engaged. .
December 5th.——Venezuelan Commissioner Santiago Aguerrevere engaged surveving
the Mururuma Creek. Commissioner _Mc'l‘urk started in a light corial to
reach‘ the creek head, all efforts to do this hitherto have failed on account of the
shallow water for up the creek. The beacon constructed of concrete is nearly com~
piste. It has a foundation of three feet below the surface resting on piles driven‘
into the earth. Its elevation is 3 ft. 6 ms. over the level of the ground. Its top .
is in the shape of an angular roof, the mediumline pointing in the direction (though
not quite accurately) of the Mural-ulna month. There 153:. straight line drawn on
the upper surface whoseterminations pomt in the directions of Point Playa and
Mururuma. mouth respectively.
December 61/:.—-'l‘he line on the north-western side of J ose’s farm is being cleared. ’
It is decided to extend it so far in the direction of Point Playa as to be beyond the
limit of all possible grants. Another beacon 18 to be erected three hundred metres
from the first one in the some straight line towards Point Playa in order completelv -
to facilitate the determining of the boundary limits for all future time. Four men
were engaged to supply the place of some of those who struck work.
.9-
_a.
l
V}
Annex 67
“M
,r.
12
December 7HL.~The he
_ . neon is now finished. On mouth 15 the long
11 that fueinw Point Fla a the latit d . O the \Torth- Eastern and South-Western sides respzetivelv “Bi-,iti u o n L
de Venezuela.” A . _ _ . sh Guiana,” and “ E.E.U.U.
. , gang ls stlll occupied clearing the line on the North-Western side of JOSO S farm. Commissioner Mc'l‘urk return
4.30 pm. At 3
_ ed from the Mururuma Creek at pm. on the prevmus day the head of the creek was reached. The
four men sent up for do '
was supposed, there is an
the end facing the Moruruma
aring purposes on the 31'
‘ _ open savannah inland fr Commrsswner MeTurk st
Mr. W. H. McTurk, who had left for Georgetown invalided on the 19th ultimos
returned, having quite recovered his health.
A_ba,rrel of biscuits has arrived in to-day’s steamer.
(Sgd.) MICHAEL MCTURK,
Senior Boundary Commissioner.
December 8th, 1900.
“A ‘
M'“
'1.AngN
‘.
A .-
#K‘s‘r
/,
. ‘
1 M
V‘.
. l”
a‘
d
2
i
“f
i
s
E
i
l
p”
i
\
Annex 67

Annex68Ministry of Foreign Relations of Venezuela, [Resolución de 8 de junio de 1903, por la cual se reconstituye la Comisión Venezolana de límites con la Guayana Británica] Resolution of 8 June 1903, creating the Venezuela Boundary Commission(8 June 1903)

Annex69British Guiana, Recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners for the Adoption of the Line of the Watershed between the Caroni, Cuyuni and Mazaruni River Systems as the Boundary between the Source of the Wenamu River and Mount Roraima in place of the Direct Line Mentioned in the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal of Paris, Dated 3rd October 1899, British Guiana Combined Court, Annual Session (10 Jan. 1905)

Annex 69
Annex 69
Annex 69

Annex 70 Department of Foreign Affairs of Venezeula, [El Libro Amarillo: Presentado al congreso Nacional en sus sesiones de 1911] The Yellow Book: Presented to the National Congress in its 1907 Sessions (1911) (excerpt)

Annex71Memorandum from the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 1638 (16 Dec. 1931) in Caracas despatch No. 51 (25 Dec. 1931)

Annex 71
Annex 71
Annex 71
Annex 71
Annex72Memorandumon British Guiana from Secretary of State Dean Rusk for President John F. Kennedy enclosingAction Program for British Guiana (12 July 1962)(excerpt)

JOHN F. KENNEDY LIBRARYDOCUMENT CONTROL RECORDITEM REMOVED FROM THIS FOLDERTHE FOLLOWING RESTRICTED ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS FILE FOLDER:ITEM: 31DATE: 7/12/62DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:RUSK MEMO TO JFKPAGES: 4CLASS: TSLOCATION:NATIONAL SECURITY FILES COUNTRIES: BRITISH GUIANA, GENERAL, 6/62-12/62v.Mi*'\Ar*S i l/OA-BOX#: 15
Annex 72
Annex 72
Annex 72
Annex 72
Annex 72

Annex73[Aide-Memoire presentado por el Dr. Marcos Falcón Briceño al Hon. R. A. Butler] Aide-Memoire presented by Marcos Falcón Briceño to the Hon. R.A. Butler(5 Nov. 1963)

Annex 73
23 AIDE-MEMOIRE PRESENTED BY DR. MARCOS FALCON BRICENO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF VENEZUELA, TO THE HONORABLE R.A. BUTLER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, ON NOVEMBER 5, 1963, AT THE CONFERENCE THEY HELD IN LONDON. The history of the border between Venezuela and British Guyana can only be fully known and understood by researching the papers of the men who intervened in it. These papers have only been made available to scholars and expert researchers during the last decade: the papers of Benjamin Harrison, Richard Olney, Lord Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain, David Brewer, Daniel Gilman, Severo Mallet-Prevost, and others. In light of this recently discovered and compiled evidence, Venezuela has conclusive proof that it sustained a non-pecuniary and legal loss when it was deceived and deprived of its legitimate territory by the 1899 Award. This new evidence fully confirms Venezuela’s argument that the territory located west of the Essequibo is legitimately its own and continues to be part of its national sovereignty. Under these circumstances, on November 16, 1962, Venezuela secured an official agreement at the United Nations to the effect that “the three governments shall examine the documentation in the possession of all parties related to this matter” (Document A/5313. Program Topic 88). Venezuela notes with regret that Great Britain has only offered the archives of the Foreign Office for its examination. Since it did not have full access to British archives, Venezuela, gained access by private means to the official and private papers of the men who participated in the history of its eastern border. Based on available evidence, the government of Venezuela has clarified the following facts: 1) The line of the Award follows Schomburgk’s “extended line” very closely. British archives show that the maps on which this line was based were falsified. Furthermore, the British evidence showing how Schomburgk’s original line followed the Essequibo River and that Schomburgk’s restricted line was of an official nature was concealed from the Tribunal.
Annex 73
24 2) The injustice of the Award is such that it gave British Guiana some six thousand eight hundred square miles (approximately 17,604 km2) of the territory that Great Britain had officially recognized as Venezuelan, without dispute, until the appearance of the spurious "Expanded Schomburgk Line" in 1886, and this territory was only a portion of the area legitimately claimed by Venezuela. 3) The line of the Award was effectively fixed by Britain in July 1899 and extrajudicially imposed by British lawyers on the British judges, who acted as biased lawyers for their country rather than as Judges. 4) The acceptance of the Award line was imposed on the Judges through undue pressure from the President of the Tribunal, Professor Frederick de Martens. 5) The line of the Award was not a line of law but one of political compromise, described as a "shady deal" and "farce" even by British officials. 6) The Tribunal exceeded its powers. It even went so far as to decree the free navigation of the Amacuro and Barima Rivers, a decision evidently designed to exclusively ensure the interests of Great Britain. 7) By signing the 1897 Arbitration Treaty under moral duress, Venezuela was also misled as to the meaning of the statute of limitations clause. 8) Until 1899, Venezuela had no knowledge of the official and secret correspondence that led to the 1897 Treaty. Moreover, it is only now that Venezuela has learned that British lawyers exerted undue pressure on the American lawyers in order to force them to accept the British interpretation of the statute of limitations clause. 9) Despite the fact that Venezuela was coerced into acceding to the Treaty, it was nevertheless confident that the Treaty guaranteed a judicial process with exclusion of power to carry out any political or diplomatic transaction. However, the decision issued on October 3, 1899, was one of compromise, not of law. HISTORICAL TRUTH AND JUSTICE DEMAND THAT VENEZUELA SEEK THE FULL RETURN OF THE TERRITORY OF WHICH IT HAS BEEN DISPOSSESSED, and in this regard it confidently relies upon the goodwill and cooperation of Her Majesty’s Government. London, November 5, 1963.
Annex 73
Annex 73
Annex 73

Annex74Hermann González Oropeza, S.J. & Pablo Ojer, [Informe que los expertos venezolanos para la cuestión de límites con Guayana Británica presentan al Gobierno Nacional] Report submitted by the Venezuelan Experts to the NationalGovernment on the Issue of the Boundaries with British Guiana(18 Mar. 1965)

259 W 30thStreet, 11thFloor New York, NY 10001 +1.212.631.7432STATE OF NEW YORK)))COUNTY OF NEW YORK) ssCERTIFICATIONThis is to certify that the attached translation is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, a true and accuratetranslation fromSpanishinto Englishof the attached excerpt from Reclamation of Guayana Esequiba.Lionbridge
Annex 74
[stamp:] August 2, 2012Copy ____ 1968REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELAMINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS[logo]RECLAMATION OFGUAYANA ESEQUIBADOCUMENTS1962-1967CARACAS, 1967
Annex 74
2829[...]REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VENEZUELAN EXPERTS TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ON THE ISSUEOFTHEBOUNDARIES WITHBRITISH GUIANA“Nothing is settled until it is settled right.”ABRAHAM LINCOLNEach of the statements contained in this Report are supported by their respective documents, which were presented to Great Britain at the talks between experts during the 15 sessions that took place in London between February and May 1964.VENEZUELAN TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN GUAYANA1. From the discovery ofGuiana in 1499 until the end of the 16th century, Spain, as discoverer, first occupier and settler, possessed the Guianese territory with the recognition of the other powers. 2. When the Peace of Münster was signed in 1648, there was still no Dutch establishment west of the Essequibo River. Underthe same Peace of Münster, Spain only recognized to Holland the posts it had in Guyanaas ofthat date, but itdid not authorize Holland to establish itself beyond what it occupiedas of that time. The insignificant and short-livedDutch posts that appeared later to the west of the Essequibo wereregardedas transgressions of the Peace of Münster. 3. When Great Britain definitively obtained British Guianain 1814, it bordered with Venezuela along the Essequibo River. This is the border that appears in several maps printed in London and in particular in the map of CruzCano, published in 1799 by General Francisco de Miranda with the sponsorship of the British Government.
Annex 74
30314. Gran Colombia, which included Venezuela until 1830, made it known to Great Britain throughthe declarations of its diplomats: Zea (1821), Revenga (1823), Hurtado (1824) and Gual (1825), that its border with British Guiana was the Essequibo line. Great Britain did not protest the declarations of Great Colombia. The declaration of Minister Hurtado in 1824 is of singular importance, becauseit was madewhen he negotiated and obtained from the United Kingdom the recognition of Gran Colombia as an independent nation. When Spain signedthe Treaty recognizingthe sovereignty of our country over the territory “known under the old name of the Captaincy General of Venezuela”in Madrid on March 30, 1845, it included the Province of Guayana, which wasbordered to the east by the Essequibo River. THE ANGLO -VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY5. The Essequibo line, as the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, would go on to essentially formthe original 1835 Schomburgk lineshownin the map madethat year by the Prussian naturalist before it became biased in favor of British interests.Neither the Royal Geographical Society of London, nor the Colonial Office, which also sponsored Schomburgk’sfirst exploration, objected to this map. 6. The first time that Great Britain aspired to the territory to the west of the Essequibo was when it published the pseudo-Schomburgk line of 1840in the well-known“Sketch Map”of “Parliamentary Papers”of that year. This line was disputedby Venezuela. This is the origin of the border controversy between Venezuela and Great Britain. New evidence from the British archives themselves clarifies the following facts: a) Both the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office rejected Schomburgk’s arguments in favor of his pseudo-line of 1840. Those two Ministers concluded that the Prussian naturalist had misinterpretedthe historical documents and used them with biasand sectarianism. b) In spite of this, the British Government commissioned thissame naturalist for a new exploration (1840–1843) and to construct a new map of British Guiana according to that pseudo-Line. The naturalist, exceeding his instructions, erected posts, marked trees and made acts of possession that gave rise to formal protests byVenezuela.c) Lord Aberdeen’s “premature”and state (exploration), he had d) It is a known Sohomburgk by ordering demand of Venezuela, in a note dated January 7. The internal Office,and the Demerara maps containingthepseudo-served asthe largestBritish today that following Government and the a)The 1857 Foreign controversy.b)The Memorandum Colony”(1867).c)The Schomburgk-d)The Brown map e)The Stanford Throughthese official Venezuelan territories,Barima and the Otomong. 8. In 1850,Great Britain territory, which naturally the largestclaim borderclaimed by Venezuela. Agreement, which remained 9. Pressure from British and Colonial governments Venezuelan territory Government published containeda new “Schomburgk always been the and thusthe British 1886. 10. The British Guiana and the British Government, Annex 74
30314. until 1830, made it its diplomats: Zea 1825), that its border Britain did not protest singular importance, from the United independent nation. sovereignty of our of the Captaincy 1845, it included the by the Essequibo CONTROVERSY5. Venezuela and British Schomburgk lineshownin before it became Geographical Society sponsored Schomburgk’sfirst territory to the west Schomburgk line of Parliamentary Papers”of that origin of the border evidence from the Office rejected 1840. Those two misinterpretedthe sectarianism. commissioned thissame construct a new map naturalist, exceeding acts of possession c) Lord Aberdeen’s notes in 1841 describe Schomburgk’s actions as “premature”and state that because his commission was a “survey” (exploration), he had no business taking possession. d) It is a known fact that the British Government disavowed Sohomburgk by ordering the removal of the posts and border marks at the demand of Venezuela, as reportedto the Venezuelan Minister in London, in a note dated January 31, 1842. 7. The internal documentation of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office,and the Demerara Government reveals that the publication of the maps containingthepseudo-Schomburgk line of 1840wereofficial mapsand served asthe largestBritish claim against Venezuela. Thus, we know today that following maps were prepared under the direction of the British Government and the Demerara Government:a)The 1857 Foreign Office Memorandum map of the Guiana controversy.b)The Memorandum map by C. Chalmers, “Crown Surveyor of the Colony”(1867).c)The Schomburgk-Walker map of 1872.d)The Brown map of 1875.e)The Stanford map of 1875.Throughthese official maps,Great Britain recognizedasundisputed Venezuelan territories,from the outsetof the controversyuntil 1886, all oftheupper Barima and all ofthe Cuyuní from theirsources to themouth of the Otomong. 8. In 1850,Great Britain and Venezuela agreednotto occupy the disputed territory, which naturally lied between the pseudo-Schomburgk line of1840, the largestclaim of the United Kingdom, and the Essequibo, the borderclaimed by Venezuela. This is what came to be called the 1850 Agreement, which remained in force until the Arbitration.9. Pressure from British Guiana’s mining interests led the Metropolitan and Colonial governments to pushthe so-called “Schomburgk line”over Venezuelan territory which was not in dispute. In 1887,the British Government published amap made in 1842 by a man namedHebert, which containeda new “Schomburgk line,”and went onto declare that this linehad always been the pointof reference in its diplomatic correspondence, and thusthe British Foreign Office first came to know ofthis line in June 1886. 10. The British Guiana mining companies continued to exert pressure, and the British Government, a few months after publishing the Hebert line
Annex 74
3233as its maximum territorial claim to Venezuela, declared it a border of strict law and advanced its colonialist ambitions even further to near Upata, a few kilometers from the Orinoco, with the so-called “line of the maximum British claim.”11. Venezuela’s efforts to obtain a peaceful resolution to the border dispute prematurely created by the Prussian naturalist are also well known facts. New evidence reveals that Great Britain rejected Venezuela’sconstant proposals to submit the matter to arbitration because itsgovernment believed it lacked arguments and that a wholly judicial decision would be unfavorable to it. Because Great Britain had no confidence in its land titles, it successively changed its position with respect to the border with Venezuela. The Aberdeen (1844), Granville (1881), Rosebery (1886), etc., lines reflect the interests of British Guiana colonists in each period. By contrast, Venezuela, because it was sure of the validity of its land titles, was always willing to submit the dispute to the judicial decision of impartial arbitrators and maintained its claim to the Essequibo line. THE ARBITRATION TREATY OF 189712.Despite successive requests to the British Government by numerous entities and States asking it toagree to submit the matter to arbitration, Great Britain resisted until, once again, and decisively, the United States intervened in 1895. In 1896,the British Government and U.S.Secretary of StateRichard Olney opened thenegotiations that would leadto the Arbitration Treaty. When Venezuela askedthe United States to intercedewith Great Britain, it made it clear that the Caracas Foreign Ministry mustbe consulted on any developments in the region. Furthermore, it explicitly required that any arbitration agreement reached should be based on the followingtwopremises: 1) that the entire disputed territory was subject to arbitration; 2) that the matter would be decided by a court of law. Current research shows that overthe course of the negotiations, particularly in the final and most important phase, Venezuela was kept in thedark. Consulted on the statute of limitations clause, negotiations continued in spite ofand against the objections of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry. Moreover, Richard Olney made an agreementwith Great Britainto exclude Venezuela 13. Venezuela coerced by Secretary the mercy of Great abandonment in which Venezuelan Foreign terms of that Treaty.14.Venezuela was the Arbitration Treaty, meaningdifferent from the English Government.THE DEFECTS 15. Even with the 1897, Venezuela was strict accordance Andrade asked the Ministry in caseGreat Britain dispute.“It may also be,”compromise with respect lawyers would not proposal to Venezuela, to decide it in case it The Venezuelan could not in any way lacks powers concerning “Asidefrom Arbitration, our Constitution, the recourse for arrangements toterritorial domain.”Therefore, the arbitrators and attorneysbefore lacked for the settlement accordance with the Historical research substantive and procedural, Annex 74
3233as a border of strict near Upata, a few of the maximum resolution to the border also well known rejected Venezuela’sconstant arbitration because itsgovernment wholly judicial its land titles, it the border with Rosebery (1886), etc., each period. validity of its land judicial decision of Essequibo line. 189712.Government by submit the matter to and decisively, the of StateRichard Arbitration Treaty. intercedewith Great mustbe consulted explicitly required that the followingtwopremises: to arbitration; 2) the negotiations, Venezuela was kept in clause, negotiations Venezuelan Foreign agreementwith Great Britainto exclude Venezuela from the Arbitral Tribunal.13. Venezuela signed the Arbitration Treaty on February 2, 1897,coerced by Secretary of State Richard Olney and his threatsofabandoningitto the mercy of Great Britain. Only“the dangerous consequences of the abandonment in which the refusal would place Venezuela”—as the Venezuelan Foreign Minister statedin 1896—could force him toaccept the terms of that Treaty.14.Venezuela was made to understand the scope of several clauses of the Arbitration Treaty, in particular the statute of limitationsclause,with a meaningdifferent from what wasagreed confidentially between Olney and the English Government.THE DEFECTS OF THE “ARBITRATION AWARD”15. Even with the substantial objections to the Arbitration Treaty of 1897, Venezuela was confident that the Tribunal would decide the matterin strict accordance with the law. On May 5, 1899, Plenipotentiary José Andrade asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairsin Caracas for instructions in caseGreat Britain were to proposean amicable solution to the border dispute.“It may also be,”he wrote, “that itprefers to propose to us an amicable compromise with respect to the line to be determined by the Tribunal. Our lawyers would not be surprised if Great Britain were to make such a proposal to Venezuela, and they believeit advisable for mebe authorized to decide it in case it does so.”The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry responded on May 17, 1899 that it could not in any way grant suchauthorization “because the Government lacks powers concerning negotiations on territory.”Anditadded: “Asidefrom Arbitration, enshrinedfor all matters underArticle 142 of our Constitution, the Branchesof Venezuelan Governmentdo not have any recourse for arrangements involvingcessions or modifications with respect toterritorial domain.”Therefore, the Venezuelan Government could not delegate to the arbitrators and attorneysbefore the Tribunal the authoritiesthat it itself lacked for the settlement of the dispute, outside of a decision in strict accordance with the law. Historical research has proven the existence of serious defects, both substantive and procedural, in the Tribunal’sprocedures and decision.
Annex 74
343516. The first defect in the 1899 Award is that it purported to ascribelegal value to a line alteredby Great Britain: the so-called “expanded line”of the 1842 Hebert map. Venezuela has evidence to showthat the British Foreign Office was not aware of this line until June 1886, which alone is strongly indicatesthatit was a recent distortionof the original map that had beenkept at the Colonial Officesince 1842. Venezuela now has the evidence to show thatthe lines on the following maps submitted by Great Britain to the Tribunal had been alteredat the Colonial Office:1.Schomburgk’s map on six sheets, titled “Map of the limits of British Guiana”(1841). 2.Schomburgk’s map titled “Map of the limits of British Guiana … General Map No. 1”(1841). 3.Hebert’s map of 1842.Great Britain also misled the arbitrators by presenting them with Schomburgk’s so-called “Physical Map”of 36 square feet, without boundary lines, as if it were the 90-square-foot map with boundary lines that the explorer had submitted to the Colonial Office in 1844.17.Lack of grounds. There is no doubt that, with the exception of certain rulings of the sovereigns of the nineteenth century and variousdecisions bythe Joint Commissions of earlier times, the decision of a jurisdictional authority must be well-reasoned and objective, that is to say, it must sufficiently substantiate the solution given to the conflict.This, the statement of the grounds for a decisionhas longbeen indispensable in ordinary arbitration proceedings. The statement of groundsis the part of the award that allows usto know whether the award was rendered in accordance with international law. This is especially the case of the arbitration treaty between Venezuela and Great Britain, which required a legal decision in accordance with the principle of uti possidetisjuris. The statement of groundsis thereforean integral part of the judgment. According to the prevailing opinion in the doctrine, alack of a statement of grounds, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, vitiates the award. We can state that the Arbitral Tribunal that rendered the decision in the British-Venezuelan border dispute did not fulfill its duty and, therefore, by issuinga decision without the corresponding legal basis,it failedtoactin accordance with the rules of international law. Accordingly, the decision of the ArbitralTribunal date on which such invalidity 18. Ultra vires. arbitralaward, there against the 1899 arbitration established in 1897, the principles of law juris of 1810.In addition, rule in the following stipulation:“(period of fifty years exclusive political control sufficient to constitute Therefore, the account the principle rule a) of Art. IV, and, Great Britain, the Tribunal the reasons why it conferred during the fifty years those territories, before Venezuela, a future Moreover, the deciding and regulating the arbitration agreement; navigation of the Barima The non-application and the fact that the jurisdiction, constitutein award. This view is in accordance In the absence of precedents the authors and the practice of awards in two cases: arbitration agreement that were not application of rules such explicitly or implicitly famous Orinoco Steamship Annex 74
343516. purported to ascribelegal “expanded line”Foreign Office was strongly indicatesthatit beenkept at the evidence to show thatthe Britain to the Tribunal the limits of British Guiana … presenting them with square feet, without with boundary lines 1844.17.the exception of century and variousdecisions the decision of a objective, that is to say, conflict.decisionhas longbeen statement of groundsis whether the award was especially the case Great Britain, which of uti possidetisjuris. of the judgment. of a statement of the award. the decision in the and, therefore, by it failedtoactin Accordingly, the decision of the ArbitralTribunal is invalid under international law, at least as of the date on which such invalidity is invoked. 18. Ultra vires. However, in addition to the lack of groundsfor the arbitralaward, there is another no less important defectthat can be adduced against the 1899 arbitration decision. The arbitrationcompromise, as established in 1897, had establishedthat the decision would be based on the principles of law and,in particular,on the principle of uti possidetis juris of 1810.In addition, rule a) of Art. IV of the Treaty of Arbitration is contained in the following stipulation:“(a) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good title. The Arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding or to make title by prescription.”Therefore, the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal did not take into account the principle of uti possidetis juris or the stipulation contained in rule a) of Art. IV, and, even underthe interpretation most favorable for Great Britain, the Tribunal oversteppedits powers, becauseit did not state the reasons why it conferred possession of such territoryto that country during the fifty years prior to the award, with the only certainty being that those territories, before 1810, belonged to the Captaincy General of Venezuela, a future independent State. Moreover, the Arbitral Tribunal went far beyond its powers by deciding and regulating amatter whose examination was notprovided forin the arbitration agreement; specifically, it decided and regulated the free navigation of the Barima and Amacuro rivers. The non-application of the rules provided for in the Arbitration Treaty, and the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal decided mattersover which it had no jurisdiction, constitutein and of themselves new grounds for nullity of the award. This view is in accordance with the best doctrine of international law. In the absence of precedents for awards that suffer from alack of grounds, the authors and the practice of international law generally allowthe nullity of awards in two cases: lack ofjurisdiction ofthe judge (absence of a valid arbitration agreement or treaty), or ultra vires(extension of the decision tomatters that were not included in the arbitration or judicial agreement, or application of rules such as the rulesof equity, for example, which had been explicitly or implicitly excluded by the parties). It is especially in the famous Orinoco Steamship Company casebetween the United States and
Annex 74
3637Venezuela that this definition of ultra vireshas been enshrined by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1910). In this regard, see also the judgment issued by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906. Judgment of November 13, 1960,ICJ 1960, p. 215 et seq. Both cases⎯the unlawful extension of jurisdiction and the application of rules not established in the agreement⎯involvethe arbitrator’s exercise of his power, which cannot be confirmeduntil after the award has been issued.19. Another defect of the award is that it was not a decision of law, as wasagreed, but rather a compromise. This is how it isinterpreted by:a)the American and European press,b)members of the Tribunal,c)lawyers before the Court.The strength of this evidence is such that Mr. C. T. Crowe, delegate of Great Britain, had to acknowledge before the Special Political Committee of the United Nations in 1962 that the award was the result of a compromise. 20. The award was a compromise obtainedby extortion, according to converging testimonies from American, English, Venezuelan and French sources, such as:a)Mallet-Prevost,b)Buchanan (English representative before the Tribunal),c)Perry Allen (secretary of Mallet-Prevost ), d)Sir Richard Webster (Lead British Counsel),e)Lord Russell (ChiefBritishArbitrator),f)J. F. de Rojas and José Andrade,g)L. de la Chanonie,h)Georges A. Pariset.21. The award was also the result of a political deal. a)This is explained by Mallet-Prevost in hisMemorandum, according to which the award was a “farce”and “a deal...concluded between Russia and Great Britain”(1) (1)“A deal... concluded between Russia and Great Britain.”(2)“Russia was the fifth in the Tribunal, and it is her diplomacy to be on England’s side balance of power,” etc.b)The diary of the fifth in the balance c)This is confirmed Harris, when a“farce.”The Mallet-Prevost Perry Allen): d)The A. L. Mason General and expedient.”(e)R. J. Block, was issued,to Great Britain: 22. Lord Russel private letter in 1896, settled by allowing arrangement. Thatsame year,at Saratoga Springs, London,which,with Lord Russell’s opinion newspaper’s commentary Tribunal”case of 1899: (3)“The thingis a farce.” (4)“Settled as a political (5)“Venezuela. Martens’ Annex 74
3637Venezuela enshrined by the also the judgment Judgment of November and the application arbitrator’s exercise award has been decision of law, as isinterpreted by:Crowe, delegate of Political Committee the result of a extortion, according to Venezuelan and French Tribunal),hisMemorandum, farce”and “a deal...England’s side b)The diary of Harrison’s wifeexpresses a similar view:“Russia was the fifth in the Tribunal, and it is her diplomacy to be on England’sside balance of power,”etc.(2)c)This is confirmed by Colonial Office official Charles Alexander Harris, when he affirms that the decision of the Paris Tribunal was a“farce.”The same qualifier of Judge Brewer, according to the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum and of General Harrison, accordingto Perry Allen): “The thing is a farce.”(3)d)The A. L. Mason Memorandum, which contains the testimony of General and former President Harrison:“...settled as a political expedient.”(4)e)R. J. Block, Lord Russell’s own secretary, the day before the award was issued,wrotein his diary thatMartens’deal that gave victory to Great Britain: “Venezuela. Martens’Deal Given Us Victory.”(5)22. Lord Russel of Killowen, the principal English arbitrator, in a private letter in 1896, expressed the opinion that the Guiana case should be settled by allowing the arbitrators to definethe boundary by diplomatic arrangement. Thatsame year,he expressed the same opinion in a speech delivered at Saratoga Springs, which earned harsh commentary from the Times of London,which,with singular frankness,expressed what was implicit in Lord Russell’s opinion ofinternational arbitration. The London newspaper’s commentary proved prophetic for the “Anglo-Venezuelan Tribunal”case of 1899: (3)“The thingis a farce.” (4)“Settled as a political expedient.”(5)“Venezuela. Martens’ Deal Given Us Victory.”
Annex 74
3839(6)Again, as the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum reveals, Lord Russell putforth, in January 1899, his theory that international arbitration should not be based exclusively on law, butinsteadshould take into account “questions of international policy.”23. The accuracy of the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum is supported by numerousdocuments contemporary to the so-called award of October 3, 1899. The objections raised against it by Great Britain are irrelevant and contrary to all documentary evidence, as whendenying the historical possibility of the Anglo-Russian arrangementconcerningthe Guyanese border, arguing that in 1899 relations between those two powers were strained. This objection, asidefrom implying a hardlyacceptable principle, i.e.,that arrangements between countries are not possiblewhen relations between them are strained, is not consistent withthe fact that precisely in 1899 several Anglo-Russian agreements were formalized in responsetovital needs ofthose two powersat that time.VENEZUELA’S POSITIONSON THE “AWARD”24. The Venezuelan Government had some knowledge of the irregularityof the “award”and wasted noopportunity to protest against it. ItsCounselbefore the Tribunal, J. M. de Rojas, described the award as “derisory and a manifest injustice.”Venezuelan President Ignacio Andrade affirmed that the award had only returnedto Venezuela part of its usurped territory. 25. When the British Minister in Caracas, in a note dated December 4, 1899, stated his opinion on the justice of the so-called award, a few days(6) (6)later, the Venezuelan arguments.The Venezuelan arbitration decision to invoke could not face the formidable had the support of the the United Kingdom. published, by way of “We have no doubt accept the verdict and with the enforcement 26. Venezuelan did, among others, the 1899. 27. A note from dated December 5, 1899, demarcation. In July Government that, if Britain alone would same Minister notified Governor of British work. On the 19th,the Playa boundary marker. choicebut to send the 28. In the “Confidential Venezuelan Demarcation October 22, 1900, nature of the “award,”of an fundamentallyjuridical imposed by the any historical, geographical because the “award”Venezuelan commissioners procedure.”29. If Venezuela the so-called border ofthe circumstances, Commission, evidently to the supposed Annex 74
3839(Lord Russell putforth, arbitration should not take into account Memorandum is supported by award of October 3, are irrelevant and whendenying the historical arrangementconcerningthe Guyanese two powers were hardlyacceptable principle, i.e.,possiblewhen relations that precisely in formalized in responsetovital AWARD”knowledge of the protest against it. described the award as Ignacio Andrade part of its usurped dated December 4, award, a few days(later, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister replied that he could refute his arguments.The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry came to the conclusion that the arbitration decision contained defects of such a degree that it wasauthorized to invoke its invalidity. It decided not to denounce it because it could not face the formidable power of its adversary, given thatit no longer had the support of the United States, which had entered into an ententewith the United Kingdom. Theday after the “award,”the English press published, by way of a threat, the following: “We have no doubt that the United States will force Venezuela to accept the verdict and that it will act appropriately if there areproblems with the enforcement ofthe decision.”26. Venezuelan public opinion immediately criticized the award, as did, among others, the influential newspaper “El Tiempo”of October 17, 1899. 27. A note from the British Minister in Caracas to his Government, dated December 5, 1899, states that Venezuela wished to delay the border demarcation. In July 1900, the British Minister notified the Venezuelan Government that, if the Commission was not sent before October 3, Great Britain alone would proceed to startthe demarcation. On October 8, the same Minister notified the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairsthat the Governor of British Guiana had been instructed to begin the demarcation work. On the 19th,the British Commissioners had already erected the Punta Playa boundary marker. Venezuela, faced with this clearpressure, had no choicebut to send the Demarcation Commission. 28. In the “Confidential Instructions”issued to the head of the Venezuelan Demarcation Commission, Mr. Felipe Aguerrevere, on October 22, 1900, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after analyzingthe nature of the “award,”described it as “more the resultof a compromise than of an fundamentallyjuridical examination,”and statedwith respect totheborder imposed by the arbitrators: “It is a de factoline established without any historical, geographical or political support or foundation.”Thus, and because the “award”had been plainlyunfairto Venezuela, he instructed the Venezuelan commissioners to refer everything “to the most severe procedure.”29. If Venezuela concurred with Great Britain on the demarcation of the so-called border of the “award,”it was because of the immensepressure ofthe circumstances, in order the prevent further troubles. The work of its Commission, evidently of a purely technical nature, did not constituteassent to the supposed judgment of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Annex 74
404130. In the 1903 Venezuelan arbitration before the International Court at The Hague, the Venezuelan lawyers did not hesitate to state that the Arbitration of 1899 “left a feeling of bitterness in the mind of Venezuela,”and added, among other things, that the award was such that “the memory of it would be embittered with a sense of injustice.”(7)31. The internal and international situation of Venezuela in the first half of the 20th century forced it to postpone the denunciation of the award. But the press, Venezuelan authorsand teachersuninterruptedly taught successive generations that the border of the “award”did not reflect Venezuela’slegitimate rights. 32. When from 1915 to 1917 Venezuela insisted in vain toGreat Britain to redo the demarcation of some sectionsof the border, the British Government refused due tothe painful war itscountry was going through. 33. Venezuela, which like other Latin American countries had not wanted to raise the boundary issuewhilethe United Kingdom was involved in the recent worldconflicts, waited for a new era of international justice to succeed the colonialist era. Before the San Francisco Conference (1945), the Venezuelan Ambassador in Washington, Dr. Diógenes Escalante, invoking the new spirit of equity among nations, demanded in 1944 “amicable reparation”for the injustice committed by the award.34. On June 30, 1944, the Chamber of Deputies, through the voice of Deputy Dr. José A. Marturet, ratified Venezuela’straditional position onthe award, demanding “the revision of its borders with BritishGuiana.”At the same time, in the closing session of July 17, 1944, Dr. Manuel Egaña, President of the Congress, statedin support of the position of the ExecutiveBranch:“...And here I wish to reiterateand confirm the wishfor revision, announced tothe world and in the presenceof the President of the Republic by Ambassador Escalante and before this Congress, categorically, by Deputy Marturet; I wish to reiterate and confirm, I repeat, the wish for revision of the awardwherebyBritish imperialism stripped us of a large part of our Guyana.”In statements to the press on July 18, 1944, the members of the PermanentForeign Relations Committees of the Legislative Chambers, representing different political parties, also spoke ofthe need to revise the 1899 award. (7)“Left a feeling of bitterness in the mind of Venezuela,” and added, among other things, that the award was such that “the memory of it would be embittered with a sense of injustice.”35. The Charter of international equity ambassador, was promulgated Conference in Bogota, Government had Head of the Venezuelan “...we do not in to obtain certain correspond to them, aplacidand cordial mayassert in favor of colonial tutelage and 36. In 1949,Memorandum, which Venezuelan historians, immediately rushedto would further clarify the first time,it was archives of Great Britain. 1955. 37. The publication the opening of the These circumstances now to formalize its 38. In 1951, the Ruiz, once again presented American Foreign Ministers award, demanding the by the Arbitral Tribunal. Affairs, Mr. Rafael Gallegos Ministry of Foreign 39. The same opinion at the Tenth Inter-American a statement read by Dr. Ramón Carmona, Annex 74
404130. International Court to state that the mind of Venezuela,”that “the memory Venezuela in the first denunciation of the award. teachersuninterruptedly taught award”did not reflect in vain toGreat border, the British was going through. countries had not Kingdom was involved international justice to Conference (1945), Diógenes Escalante, demanded in 1944 award.through the voice of Venezuela’straditional position onthe BritishGuiana.”1944, Dr. Manuel the position of the wishfor revision, President of the Republic categorically, by repeat, the wish for stripped us of a large members of the Legislative Chambers, need to revise the among other things, that sense of injustice.”35. The Charter of the United Nations,which established the principles of international equity invoked the previous year bythe Venezuelan ambassador, was promulgated in 1945. At the 1948 Inter-American Conference in Bogota, Venezuela rushedto place on record the opinionthatits Government had maintained on the arbitration decision of 1899. The Head of the Venezuelan Delegation, Mr. Rómulo Betancourt, declared:“...we do not in any way deny the right of certain nations of America to obtain certain portions of hemispheric territory that may justly correspond to them, nor do we renounce what Venezuelans, in the event of aplacidand cordial historical and geographical reassessmentof America, mayassert in favor of their territorial aspirations over areas presentlyunder colonial tutelage and whichwerepreviouslywithin our own boundaries.”36. In 1949,Venezuela learned ofthe famous Mallet-Prevost Memorandum, which revealed the private detailsof the Paris farce. Venezuelan historians, under the direction of their Foreign Ministry, immediately rushedto search the British archives for new documents that would further clarify the details of that farce. Fifty years had passed and for the first time,it was possible to study those documents in the public archives of Great Britain. This researchwascarried out between 1950 and 1955. 37. The publication of the Mallet-Prevost Memorandum coincides with the opening of the British archives and the private American archives. These circumstances help to explain the fact that Venezuela has waited until now to formalize its denunciation of theaward. 38. In 1951, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Dr. Luis Emilio Gómez Ruiz, once again presented totheFourthMeeting of Consultation of American Foreign Ministers the Government’s opinionon the line of the award, demanding the “equitable rectification”of the injustice committed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Meanwhile, the ActingMinisterof Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rafael Gallegos Medina, declared to the press in Caracas: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has never renounced this aspiration of theVenezuelans.”39. The same opinion was expressed by the Government of Venezuela at the Tenth Inter-American Conference held in Caracas in March 1954, in a statement read by the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Ramón Carmona, which concluded: In accordance with the foregoing,
Annex 74
4243no decision on the subject of colonies adopted at this Conference may impair the rights of Venezuela in this regard, nor be interpreted, in any case, as a waiver thereof.”40. Following the formation of the British Caribbean Federation, although it did not include British Guiana, in February 1956 the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Dr. José Loreto Arismendi, ratified the traditional Venezuelan position regarding the boundaries withthat colony, in the sense that it would not be affected by any change of status that might occur in that borderingterritory. 41. In March 1960, Dr. Rigoberto Henríquez Vera presented the positionof the Venezuelan Chamber of Deputies to a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom: “A change of status in British Guiana cannot invalidate the just aspirations of our people for an equitable reparation, and through acordial understanding, of the gravedamages suffered by the nation by virtue of the unjust decisionof 1899, in which peculiar circumstances caused our country to losemore than sixty thousand square miles of its territory.”42. When Venezuela finally had in its possession copious documentation substantiatingits traditional opinionon the nullity of the award, it once again placed iton record before theCommission onTrusteeship and Non-Self-Governing Territories at the United Nations (February 1962) through its Ambassador, Dr. Carlos Sosa Rodriguez. 43. The Chamber of Deputies, in sessions held on March 28 and April 4, 1962, after hearing the presentationsof the representatives of all political parties in support of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry’sposition on the award, approved the following agreement: “To endorse Venezuela’spolicy on the boundary disputebetween the Britishpossession and our country insofar as it refers to the territory of which we were dispossessed by colonialism; and, on the other hand, to support without reservation the total independence of British Guiana and its incorporation into the democratic wayof life.”44. On November 12,1962, then Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Dr. Marcos Falcón Briceño, in his speech before the Special Political Committee of the XVII Assembly of the United Nations, broadly stated Venezuela’s traditional position with respect tothe border matterofGuyana, and invoked the nullity of the award of October 3, 1899. As a result of conversations held by representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom and Venezuela, an agreement was reached between thetwo countries, with the concurrence of the Government of British Guiana, to the effect that the three Governments would examine the documents results of the conversationsto authorization of the Political Committee, November 16, 1962. Following the arrangements accordance with the Ministers of Venezuela Briceño and theHonorableR. Venezuelan Foreign presented to Her British with Venezuela’s views follows: “Historical truth return of the territory SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS In sum, as a result that has just been succinctly contained herein and the following conclusions:1. Venezuela had to pressure from the United basis of the compromise which was given misleading 2. Venezuela”was agreed from the beginning would be part of the 3. Although Venezuela’ssubstantial into account by itsmost arbitration commitment strictly in accordance 4. The. so-called award basedon the following:a)The lack of b)The fact that their decision, principle of Annex 74
4243no Conference may interpreted, in any case, Caribbean Federation, 1956 the Venezuelan ratified the traditional colony, in the sense that might occur in Vera presented the a parliamentary invalidate the just through acordial nation by virtue of the circumstances caused our its territory.”possession copious the nullity of the theCommission onTrusteeship United Nations Rodriguez. March 28 and April representatives of all political Ministry’sposition on the Venezuela’spolicy and our country dispossessed by reservation the total into the democratic Foreign Minister, Dr. Special Political Nations, broadly stated border matterofGuyana, 3, 1899. representatives of the an agreement was concurrence of the three Governments would examine the documents relating to this matter, and would report the results of the conversationsto the United Nations. This was stated, with the authorization of the concernedparties, by the Chairman of the Special Political Committee, Mr. Leopoldo Benitez (representative of Ecuador) on November 16, 1962. Following the arrangements made through diplomatic channels, in accordance with the above agreement, in November 1963 the Foreign Ministers of Venezuela and the United Kingdom, Dr. Marcos Falcón Briceño and theHonorableR. A. Butler, respectively. On this occasion,the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, on the 5th of the same month and year, presented to Her British Majesty’sForeign Secretary an Aide-Memoire with Venezuela’s views on the dispute, the conclusion of which was as follows: “Historical truth and justice demand that Venezuela claim the full return of the territory of which it has been dispossessed.”SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS In sum, as a result of the tripartite examination of the documentation that has just been succinctly set forth, which supports each of the assertions contained herein and was presented to Great Britain, Venezuela has reached the following conclusions:1. Venezuela had to accept the Arbitration Treaty of 1897 under undue pressure from the United States and Great Britain, which negotiated the basis of the compromise while excludingthe Venezuelan Government, which was given misleading explanations. 2. Venezuela”was so excludedthat the United States and Great Britain agreed from the beginning of the negotiation that no Venezuelan jurist would be part of the Arbitration Tribunal. 3. Although Venezuela’ssubstantial objectionsto the Treaty were not taken into account by itsmost direct negotiators, Venezuela interpreted the arbitration commitment to meanthat the Tribunal’s decision would be strictly in accordance with the law.4. The. so-called award of October 3, 1899 is null and void.This nullity is basedon the following:a)The lack of a statement of grounds for the decision. b)The fact that the arbitrators did not take into account, in reaching their decision, the applicable rules of law and, in particular, the principle of uti possidetis juris; nor did they make any effort to
Annex 74
4445investigate the territories that belonged to the Netherlands or to the Kingdom of Spain at the time of the so-called acquisition (Art. III of the Arbitration Treaty).c)The fact that the arbitrators did not decide how the 50-year limitation period would be computed, nor did they apply it as agreed in the Arbitration Treaty.d)Without being empowered to do so underthe arbitration agreement, the arbitrators establishedrulesin their verdictforthe free navigation of two border rivers, which were clearlyagainst Venezuela.e)The fact that the so-called award was the resultof a diplomatic compromise explains whythe arbitrators did not take into account the rules of law set forthin the ArbitrationTreaty. The contemporaneous documents, while revealing that the arbitrators were aware of this, also confirm this fact, whichthey describeas a “compromise”and a “farce.”5. The representatives of Great Britain submitted to the ArbitralTribunalmaps which were considered to be of decisive importance, but which had been alteredat the Colonial Office. 6. The line of the so-called award had been prepared at the Colonial Office in July 1899, that is, several months in advance of the award.This boundary line was imposed on the American arbitrators by the President of the Tribunal, Russian Professor de Martens, by means of coercion. 7. Venezuela has never assented to the so-called award of October 3, 1899. Venezuela’s participation in the demarcation of the border was of a purely technical nature. The country was forced to do so by insurmountable circumstances. Both the Government and the Venezuelan people, whenever and to the extentpossible, protested the so-called award of 1899.Caracas, March 18, 1965.Hermann González Oropeza, S. J.Pablo Ojer, S. J.[...]
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74
Annex 74

Annex75Sir Geoffrey Meade,Report on the Exposition presented by the Venezuelan Experts(3 Aug. 1965)

Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75
Annex 75

Annex 76 Dr Ignacio Irabarren Borges, [Declaración del Dr Ignacio Iribarren Borges, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, la Conferencia Ministerial de Londres] Statement Made by Dr Ignacio Iribarren Borges, Venezuelan Foreign Minister, to the Ministerial Conference Held in London (9 Dec. 1965)

Annex77CharterGranted by their High Mightiness the Lords the States-General to the West India Company (3 June 1621)

Annex 77
Annex 77
Annex 77
Annex 77
Annex78Articles of the Peace of Münster (30 Jan. 1648)

Annex 78
Annex 78
Annex79Articles of Capitulation of Demerara and Essequibo (18-19 Sept. 1803)

Annex 79
Annex 79
Annex80British Guiana, Letters Patent constituting the Colony of British Guiana and appointing Major-General Sir Benjamin D’Urban, K.C.B., Governor (4 Mar. 1831)

Annex 80
Annex 80
Annex 80
Annex 80
Annex81U.S. Congress, 53rd Session, Joint Resolution, H. Res. 252 (10 Jan. 1895)

Annex 81
Annex 81
Annex82United States 54th Congress, Act of the United States Congress, Public Act No. 1(21 Dec. 1895)

Annex 82

Annex 83 United Kingdom, Brazil, Treaty Series No. 14, Treaty and Convention for the settlement of the Boundary between British Guiana and Brazil (22 Apr. 1926) (excerpt)

Annex 83
Annex 83
Annex 83
Annex 83
Annex84Republic of Venezuela, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [Tratados públicos y acuerdos internacionales de Venezuela: 1920-1925] Public Treaties and International Agreements 1920-1925, Vol. III (1927)

Annex85[Tratado General de Arbitraje Interamericano] General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration, O.E.A. (5 Jan. 1929), entered into force on 28 Oct. 1929

Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86
Annex 86

Annex87Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Brazil approving the General Report of the Special Commissioners Appointed to Demarcate the Boundary-Line between British Guiana and Brazil, 51 U.K.T.S. 1946 (15 Mar. 1940)

Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex 87
Annex88McQuillen & Brading, Minutes regarding the Venezuelan -British Guiana Boundary Dispute(10 Mar. 1944) (9 Sept. 1944)

Annex 88
Annex 88
Annex 88

Annex89U.S. of Venezuela, [Ley orgánica de los Territorios Federales] Organic Federal Territories Law(14 Sept. 1948)

Annex90Minutes and Documentsfrom the Tenth Inter-American Conference (1-28 Mar. 1954) (excerpt)

Annex91Ministry of Foreign Relations, Mixed Venezuelan-Brazilian Commission on the Demarcation of Boundaries, [Acta de la Cuadragesima Primera Conferencia] Minutesof the Forty-First Conference(1973)(excerpt)

Annex92Federative Republic of Brazil, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “9.4–BV-0Mount Roraima Marker”

Annex93Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil, First Brazilian Commission to Establish Borders, “8.1–Brazil –Guyana –Venezuela Tri-Border Area (Mount Roraima)”

Annex94Petitionto the Noble and Mighty Lords the States-General of these United Provinces concerning the Population of the Coasts of Guiana situated in America (undated)

Annex 94
Annex 94
Annex 94
Annex 94
Annex 94
Annex 94
Annex95Bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezeula, [Acta de Inaguración de dos hitos Venezolano-Brasileros en el Monte Moraima] Actof Inaguration of two Venezuelan-Brazilian Boundary Marks on Mount Roraima

Annex 95
Annex 95
Annex 95
Annex 95
Annex96Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, First Day’s Proceedings (25 Jan. 1899)

ARBITRATION BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENTS OF _ ‘
HEB BBITA'NNIC_
-
MAJESTY‘
AND
-
THE UNITED STATES VENEZUELA
FIRST DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. JANUARY 25'" I899
The Arbitrators present were :
His Excellency Professor DE MAR'rENs;
The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice CoLLINs;
The Hon. Mr JUSTICE BREWER.
The Government of Her Britannic Majesty were represented by :
Sir RICHARD EVERARD WEBSTER, G. C. M. G, Q. C, M. P. (Her
Majesty’s Attorney General);
Mr. G. R. Asmvrrn.
The Government of the United States of Venezuela were repre
sented by:
Mr. S. MALLET-PREVOST of New York.
Agent for the British Government :
Mr. GEORGE BUCHANAN.
Agent for the Venezuelan Government :
Senor J. M. de Roms.
Secretaries to the Tribunal of Arbitration :
M. PAUL Vmuonfi;
M. TATISCHEFF.
The President. — Gentlemen,
In the first place I have to inform the meeting that, in accordance with
Article II of the Treaty of Washington, I have had the great honour to be
nominated as the fifth Arbitrator and at the same time the President of
4
Annex 96
_g_
_this Tribunal of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States
of Venezuela.
The next point concerns the Secretary of the Tribunal. The present
meeting is a preliminary meeting which will not consider the matter of
the claims, or the dispute itself. But, however, at this meeting we pro
pose to appoint Secretaries. -The Secretary will be M. Vieugué who is
connected with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic,
and the assistant Secretary will be M. Tatischeff, who is in the Minis
try of Foreign Affairs of St. Petersburg.
Then the third point is that according to the opinion of the Arbitrators,
of whom two, Lord HerschelI and Chief Justice Fuller have not been able
to come to Paris, the three Arbitrators present here recognize that in
accordance with the Treaty the preliminary course of the Arbitration,
that
is,
the exchange of cases, counter-cases, and printed arguments,
is
closed. The Arbitrators are of opinion that the two Governments
have worked in accordance with the Treaty of Washington.
Then the fourth point
is
that the two Governments, the British
Government and that of Venezuela, will be informed that the next meet
ing of the Tribunal will be on the 25"‘ May, when we hope that all the
Arbitrators will be able to meet in Paris.
Those are the principal points which the Arbitrators have decided
to day. We are not able to open the discussion or the debates on the
matters of the claim. But there is, however, one further point
:
the
Arbitrators desire that the Counsel of the two Governments settle the
order among themselves in which they will take part in the debates
before the Tribunal.
If
the Counsel of the different Governments do not agree among them
selves about the order between them, then the Tribunal must suggest
it,
but
Ithink that that
is
a
matter that principally concerns the Counsel of
the different Governments.
Mr. Justice Brewer. — They will agree, Iam sure.
Mr. Mallet-Prevost. — M. de Martens, may
I
ask
if
the 25"‘ of May
which has been fixed
is
a
date that
is
absolutely immovable? The reason
I
ask that
is
that those who come from the other side may naturally have
to make arrangements dependant on the sailing of the steamers and
it
might
be that, for the purpose of being here on the 25"‘, we might have to anti
cipate our journeyaweek or ten days or even two weeks to have
a
desi
rable steamer, whereas
by
a
delay of one or two days we might be able
to make more convenient arrangements.
The President. —I think the 25"‘ of May
is
a
date which
is
agreed to
at this moment as convenient, but
it
may happen that somebody cannot
come on the 25"‘ or perhaps even till two or three days later and
I
do not
think that that will be
a
matter of great difficulty.
Mr. Ma1let—Prev0st. — So thatzwe can feel there
is,
if
only
a
brief lati
tude, nevertheless some latitude.
The President. — Yes, but that
is
the date agreed now.
It
is
our
Annex 96
___3_
hope and wish that Counsel will be here on the 25"‘ of May. If there
is force majeure, it can be another date, say, perhaps, two days later.
Sir R. Webster. — M. de Martens, let me say that I appear with
Mr. Askwith to day on behalf of the Government of Great Britain, and on
behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty I desire to express
their gratification that you, Sir, have been nominated to be President of
this Tribunal, in addition to the very distinguished men, the Chief Justice
of the United States, Mr. Justice Brewer, Lord Herschell, and Lord Jus
tice Collins, your colleagues. I desire, Sir, on behalf of the Counsel of
Great Britain to tell you (and I am sure in this I shall be supported by
my friend Mr. Mallet-Prevost) that if in anyway in the course of the pro
ceedings we are able to assist the Tribunal with information or if there
is anything which you, Sir, or the Arbitrators, desire, or think will
facilitate the course of the proceedings, we shall be only too glad to
place ourselves at your entire disposition.
With regard to the date I quite understand that my learned friends
from the United States have not the same facilities for arriving here that
we have and I understand it to be settled as near as may be that we
shall sit on the 25"‘. But if from public or private reasons Counsel
from the United States find it difficult to be here in time and ask for a
day or two of delay we shall feel it our duty to assent most loyally to
any such suggestion.
Now, Sir, there‘is one matter which perhaps it did not occur to you to
mention and that is I think Sefior de Rojas representing the Venezuelan
Government, and Mr Buchanan as representing Her Majesty should
hand in their Commissions. They are in Paris and they will hand them
in to you or your Secretary so that they can be recognized as the Agents
empowered to act on behalf of their respective Governments in the
event of any communication having to be made, either to you, or to
each other.
I gather that you wish to postpone the decision how many days a
week you will sit until all the Arbitrators are here, and of course that
is a matter that it is not necessary to fix to-day. It can be done when
all the Arbitrators meet in Paris.
Then with regard to another point, namely, the actual order of pro
cedure. I do not know if Mr Mallet-Prevost will be in a position in the
absence of other Counsel to come to a final arrangement with me to day;
but, in accordance with the suggestion made by the Tribunal I will com
municate with him and we will endeavour, as far as possible, before we
meet on the 25"‘ May to have agreed the procedure, and in the event of
our not being able to we will ask the Tribunal to settle it for us.
That, Sir, is all I have to say except to thank you for your courtesy
and the long journey you and Mr Justice Brewer have taken to open the
proceedings of this very important Arbitration.
The Agents will lay before the Tribunal of Arbitration their Commis
sions which enable them to act.
Annex 96
_.4_
The President. — I think, in the Behring Sea Arbitration, all the
Records were signed by the President, by the Secretary of the Tribunal,
and by the two Agents. This procedure, I think, will be adopted by us.
Mr. Mallet—Prevost. — M. de Martens, I have the honour, at this
time, to appear as one of the Counsel for Venezuela and it gives me very
great pleasure to indorse all that my distinguished friend has said.
As you very well know, Sir, to day has realized for Venezuela a
dream that she has had for years, and the efforts of her statesmen for
half a century past have been towards this end. It is a matter of great con
gratulation not only for Venezuela but I thinkl may be permitted to say
also for Great Britain that a subject which at one time suspended the
friendly relations between those two Nations has been removed from the
field of diplomacy, that the old cordiality and friendship which existed
between the two Nations has been renewed and cemented firmly, and
that we are to-day able to submit the very serious questions involved not
only to a Tribunal of Arbitration, but to Arbitrators whose distinguished
records and whose high reputation give us the assurance that the ques
tions involved will be decided in justice and equity.
I thank you, Sir, and the other Arbitrators for having come this journey
and for being present here to day.
SirR. Webster. —I understand, Sir, it will be adjourned till Thursday
the 25"‘ of May subject to any order made by the Tribunal.
Now, Sir, before the Tribunal adjourns, as there is no doubt your
consultations here on other days will be entirely among yourselves per
haps it is as well I should ask, as well for the guidance of the Counsel for
the United States of Venezuela as for those of Great Britain, whether in
the event of our not being able to arrange a procedure satisfactory to both
parties, you would wish that we should send the Tribunal our points of
difference, or suggestions, if not agreed before the next meeting. Pos
sibly it would be a convenience that that should be done. I do not
know if the Tribunal propose to make any suggestion or prefer that the
suggestion should come from us, but we are most willing to endeavour
to agree, and if it meets with the view of the Tribunal and we are not
able to agree, we will prepare a memorandum and let the Tribunal have
it say by the beginning of May and they will then know what points of
difference they have to consider as to procedure. I mention this in the
interests of time, in order that the matter may be so to say stereotyped
and crystallized and no undue delay take place with reference to the
consideration of the question. We will do what the Tribunal wishes in
that respect. If we agree we will let the Tribunal know what course
we propose; if we differ, as is possible, we will communicate with the
tribunal and let them know what the differences are.
Mr. Mallet-Prevost. —I feel so entirely certain that we shall have
no difficulty in agreeing thatl do not think that suggestion will become
practical at all but I think the suggestion Sir Richard makes is a very
sensible one and I have great pleasure in agreeing to it.
Annex 96
__5_
The President. — We leave it to you entirely.
Mr. Justice Brewer. — Fully expecting that you will agree.
Sir R. Webster. — Yes.
M. de Martens, I rather gather there is nothing further the Tribunal
wishes to say.
The President. — To day, no.
Sir R. Webster. — Then might I venture, as representing the
Government of Her Britannic Majesty to be allowed to express publicly
through the few words I say to the Tribunal our respectful appreciation
of the great courtesy of the Government of the French Republic in again
placing at our disposal this place, and in allowing these proceedings to be
conducted here. I am sure in the course ofthese proceedings you and your
Brother Arbitrators will assure the French Government of your appre
ciation also, but I felt it right and I have no doubt my friend Mr. Mallet
Prevost feels it right to ask to be allowed to take the opportunity of
expressing our appreciation of the courtesy and hospitality ofthe French
Government.
Mr. Mallet-Prevost. — I desire to second most heartily what my
learned and distinguished friend has just said.
i
The President. — I will express to the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
M. Delcassé, our thanks for the hospitality which the French Govern
ment has extended to us.
Before closing this preliminary sitting, I think it is my duty at once
to thank you for the kind words which Sir Richard Webster has pro
nounced and Mr. Mallet-Prevost echoed concerning my election to the
Presidential Chair, and at the same time I thank you on behalf of my
Brother Arbitrators. Mr. Justice Brewer and Lord Justice Collins will
concur with me in saying that we will do our best according to justice
and law to decide the very difficult questions submitted to our Tribunal.
Adjourned till May the 25"‘.
Annex 96

Annex97Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela,Second Day’s Proceedings (15 June 1899), pp. 6-9

SECOND DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. JUNE I5, I899.
The Arbitrators present were :
M. DE MAarnus, Privy Councillor, President of the Tribunal of Arbi
tration;
The Right Honourable Lord RUSSELL of Killowen, G. C. M. G., (Lord
Chief Justice of England);
The Right Honourable Lord JUSTICE Harm CoLI.ms;
The Honourable MELVILLE Wnsrom FULLER, (Chief Justice of the
United States of America); and
The Honourable DAVID Josmn BREWER, (Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States of America).
There were present at the Meeting;
Mr GEORGE BUCHANAN as Agent o/ Her Britannic Zlfajestg/’s Govermnent,
and Senor J. M. DE Roms, as Agent for the Government of the United
States of Venezuela.
There were also present at the Meeting as Counsel for Her Britannic
Majesty’s Government :
Sir RICHARD W1..zasrnn, G. C. M. G., Q. C., M. P., Her B1.itannir
Majest_.1/s Attorney General.
Sir ROBERT REID, Q. C., M. P. ; Mr G. R. ASKWITH ; Mr S. A. T. ROWLATT,
and Mr F. Wi.znsrnn, Solicitor;
And as Counsel for the Government of the United States of Venezuela;
The Honourable BENJAMIN HARRISON; The Honourable BENJAMIN
F. TnAcr; Mr S. MALLET—PREVOST, and Mr JAmes Russnu. Sousv.
The President. — Gentlemen, in the name of the Tribunal of Arbi
tration of which I have the honour to be nominated the President, I will
state the several rules which were adopted at our sitting of yesterday as
the basis of our proceedings. The Tribunal have confirmed as Chief
Secretary Mr Martin, Secretary of En:/m.vs_z/, and Mr L. l)’Oyly Carte
and Mr Perry Allen as Under Secretaries. They have also decided that
our Tribunal will have its sittings, after some days when I am free
to return to Paris, every day except Saturday.
Then it has been decided also that the proceedings will be generally
public and the public will be admitted by cards of admission delivered
by the Secretary. Those are all the communications which I have to
make in the name of the Tribunal.
Now the Tribunal is ready to hear any motions or to enter upon the
hearing of the oral arguments which the Counsel of both parties will
submit to the Tribunal.
Annex 97
_7_
Sir Richard Webster. — Mr President, My Lords, and Your Honours,
with reference to what has been said as to the number of the days for the
sittings, I think if the Tribunal would be good enough to sit only four
days a week, it would meet the views of General Harrison and the other
Counsel for Venezuela and of my colleagues and myself. There is a
great deal of heavy work, and we wish to condense it as much as
possible, and the preparation of the matter is no light task : and there
fore if it please you, Sir, and the other members of the Tribunal, I shall
be glad if we might sit on the first four days of the week, instead of the
first five days of the week.
General Harrison. — Mr President, I beg to support the proposition
brought forward by Sir Richard Webster. I think it will be found that
when Counsel come to address the Court, four hours a day for four
consecutive days will be about the limit of the strength of ordinary men,
and we are all ordinary men, and that five days a week would unduly
tax the endurance of the Counsel addressing the Cou_rt. That would be
twenty hours of speech each week. It seems to me that would be an
undue strain, and that that strain would be felt by the Counsel and
perhaps by the Court, and ensure a less clear and adequate presentation
of the case to the Court.
Lord Russell. — I presume, General Harrison, when you mention
four hours a day, you mean four hours of work?
General Harrison. — From II to 4, with an interval for breakfast,
or whatever one may call it.
Lord Russell. — The proceedings should be from II to 4?
General Harrison. — Yes, I should think so.
Lord Russell. — That will be four hours a day with an interval.
General Harrison. — I should think it would be convenient to follow
the procedure adopted in the Behring Sea Case. There would be an
interval for breakfast. It seems to me we shall make more progress
upon that basis, than upon the one suggested by the President.
The President. — The proposition which has been made by Counsel
for both the Parties is agreed to by the Tribunal, and we shall not sit
five days a week, but only four days in the week.
Sir Richard Webster. — Mr President, it probably would be conve
nient if you could indicate to us how many days you would be able to
give us next week. I understand that your public engagements take you
away from Paris after to-day’s sitting, but you hope to be able to give us
two days next week.
The President. — Yes.
Sir Richard Webster. — If you could indicate them, not now perhaps,
you might let us know when you reach the Hague what days we shall
have to attend. I presume it would not be before Wednesday, probably?
The President. — Not before Wednesday.
Sir Richard Webster. — Wednesday and Thursday, or possibly
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Annex 97
__g_
The President. — If possible, yes. I shall know about next Sun
day, I should think. .
Sir Richard Webster. —That will be quite satisfactory, Mr Presi
dent.
Mr President, it would be convenient if I indicate to you the course
of proceedings so far as the speeches are concerned which have been
arranged between the Counsel for Venezuela and the Counsel for Great
Britain. Venezuela has the honour ofbeingrepresented,as you are aware,
Mr President, by very distinguished Counsel, General Harrison, General
Tracy, Mr Soley, and Mr Mallet-Prevost. I have the honour, on behalf of
Great Britain, of being associated with my friends, Sir Robert Reid, Mr Ask
with, and Mr Rowlatt. I need not enter into any statement of the dis
cussion which we have had, — it has been a perfectly friendly discussion,
and we have arranged that Great Britain through myself should speak
first; that the next two speeches should be by the Counsel for Venezuela;
that the fourth speech should be by Great Britain, with possibly two
Counsel speaking at that stage instead of one,but we have not at present
determined whether we shall ask the Tribunal to hear two Counsel or only
one; then that there shall be a speech by Venezuela, and a speech by
Great Britain and a final speech by Venezuela. Subject to anything that
may occur in the course of these proceedings, that, Mr President, is the
procedure which we have determined upon.
General Harrison. — If I rightly understand Sir Richard Webster,
he has accurately stated the agreement which has been arrived at between
the Counsel for the two Governments. I understand it remains somewhat
in doubt whether Great Britain will speak by four Counsel or only by
three. If she should speak by four Counsel, those two speeches would
follow the two speeches of Venezuela and come together?
Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly.
Sir Richard Webster. — Mr President, it now falls to me to present
to you on the part of Great Britain the whole argument in support of
the case that she has to bring before this Tribunal. I should wish,
however, before I attempt to approach the mass of matter with which
I have to deal, to endorse on behalf of Great Britain the words which you,
Sir, addressed, but a few moments ago to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
for the French Republic, expressing our appreciation of the courtesy
which has been displayed to the countries disputing in this matter, by
the reception which is given to us in Paris, and by the generous way in
which every resource and convenience of the Government of the Republic,
is placed at the disposal of the parties to the Arbitration. I feel that in
this I shall have the entire concurrence of my friends who represent
Venezuela. I know that they endorsed what I said upon this matter at
the preliminary meeting but I did not wish the formal proceeding on the
part of Great Britain to commence without a public acknowledgment of
the debt our nation owes to the French Republic for the reception they
have given us.
Annex 97
_._9__
Mr President, I shall wish to say a few words also about the Tribunal.
For a second time within not many years I have the privilege of appear
ing in this very same room on the part of Great Britain in a friendly
arbitration. On the last occasion our opponents were the great Repub
'lic of the West, the United States of America, and it is significant that
on this hearing to day we have the cause of Venezuela advocated by distin
guished men from that same Republic. ButI do not wish, nor would
my friends on the other side wish me, to dwell upon the personnel of
the Counsel. Iwill only for one moment refer to the personnel of the
Tribunal I have the honour to address. Sir, we have from that same
Republic two judges of the very highest position, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States and Mr Justice Brewer, long a distin
guished member of that Court, and it is a great honour to us, represen
ting Great Britain, that we should have the honour of addressing them.
We have also, Iam sure this my friends of the United States will en
dorse, the members of the Tribunal nominated by Great Britain, the Lord
ChiefJustice of England and Lord Justice Collins, a member of the Court
of Appeal; the Lord Chief Justice nominated to represent the very great
man who had commenced his labour in this regard, but who was sud
denly called away, as you, Sir, will remember very well, but a few months
ago. And when I come to you, Sir, the head of the Tribunal, it would be
impertinence in me to make any personal observations upon your
position, but it is a very great satisfaction to us, representing Great
Britain, to be able to endorse what was said by the Foreign Minister
but a few moments ago that we address a President whose reputation as
a jurist, as a lawyer, as a diplomatist is not confined to the boundaries
of his own country, but extends to every civilized nation.
Sir, that is the Tribunal which I have now the _honour of addressing,
and I shall have to make a very large draft upon their patience. They
are as aware as I am, though perhaps they do not feel the burden so
greatly, that there is a very vast mass of matter to be discussed and to
be presented to the Tribunal. A perusal of the written arguments would
themselves have convinced the Tribunal that that was the case. I feel
very greatly the responsibility which rests upon me. It may possibly be
— it will certainly be + that in the course of my observations I shall say
much that my friends on the other side will not agree with, and I may be
guilty of many omissions and mistakes. I am sure they will extend to
me as we shall extend to them that friendly forbearance and conside
ration which counsel accustomed to our modes of procedure are accus
tomed to extend to one another.
Mr President, beforel pass to the more serious part of the workI should
like to tell you that, as you know, of course, perfectly well, on the last
occasion when I was here I had the honour of being the junior counsel
to the distinguished man who now sits upon your left and who spoke
from this very desk, but not only did he speak from
it,
but Mr Carter,
Mr Phelps and the other distinguished counsel from the United States
2
Annex 97
Annex98Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Second Day’s Proceedings (15 June 1899), pp. 17-25

“ and shall be governed by the following Rules, which are
agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules to be
taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of in
ternational law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators
shall determine to be applicable to the case 7
’ .
Mr President, the history of arbitrations has shown that they tend to
make international law, that they tend to advance that consent of nations
which is the foundation‘, and in my respectful submission to this Tri
bunal the only foundation of international law properly so-called. It
may be, I hope it is, the fact that with reference to the ‘future of discus
sions, the rules laid down by Venezuela and Great Britain in this Treaty
may he adopted by others. We have to consider their bearing to-day.
Sir, they are rules as between Great Britain and Venezuela and nobody
else at present. They are not rules as between Spain and Holland and
it would be in my submissions to you, Sir, and to this Tribunal, a per
version of the terms of this Treaty so to treat them. What does the
first rule say? a Adverse holding or prescription during a period of
50 years shall make a good title ».
Whose adverse holding? Does anybody suggest that this was not
meant to be the adverse holding of Venezuela? Does anybody suggest
that it does not mean the adverse holding of Great Britain? Those are
the parties who have arranged this contract, those are the parties whose
-
boundary-line is to be determined. No other nation has at presentcon
sented to the fifty years’ prescription making a good title. -I am not
here, for the moment of course, to discuss before you what is necessary
for legal prescription or what is necessary for international prescription.
Some day, I hope not very far distant, I shall have the privilege of
putting my view in regard to the leading authorities on international law
as clearly as I can before you. At present my whole point is to drive
home that by this article the two countries agree that if Venezuela had
been in possession for fifty years it should be a good title, whatever
might have been the paramount title of Great Britain, or that if Great
Britain had an a.dverse holding for fifty years, whatever may have been
the paramount title of Venezuela, Great Britain should hold that terri
tory. In fact in other words, Sir, the opening language of Rule
(a)
is
only necessary where the other party to whom the rule
is
applied has
a
better paramount title.
If
neither Great Britain nor Venezuela have any
title to the territory in possession of the other one, Rule
(a)
has no
application. Rule
(a)
is
for the purpose of giving to
a
country which has
occupied a portion of territory which rightfully belongs to another na
tion
a
title notwithstanding the existence of that paramount title.
It
has no application to territory to which the other claimant had no better
title.
I
pass on
J“ :
The Arbitrators may deem exclusive political control ofa
3
Annex 98
___13_
district as well as actual settlement thereof sufficient to consti
tute adverse holding or to make title by prescription. ”
Again, Mr President, those words have no application and can have
no application to the case of territory to which the other disputing
party had no better title. Let me take a concrete case. You will find
in the course of these proceedings that Venezuela has within the last
twenty years put down some small stations within part of the territory to
which Great Britain thinks that she might rightfully have a claim. If
Great Britain has no title to that territory the title of Venezuela is com
plete the moment she took possession. I am not going to argue this
very important point of international law now, but I said, and it is the
foundation of my argument, an argument as to which I will not fail to
appeal to every jurist and every international lawyer of eminence whose
writings I know, that possession gives a perfectly good title if there is no
paramount title which overrides it.
Lord Russell. — In other words your argument is that Rule (a) of
Article IV, has no application where the territory in possession may be
called terra nullius.
Sir Richard Webster. — None whatever. My contention is that
Rule
(a)
is
wanted to deprive either nation of territory to which they
would have
a
good title but for the occupation or control indicated therein.
Mr President, let me say
a
word about the last part of Rule (a).
I
admit
those words are not as imperative as in the first, but for the purpose of
my present argument
it
makes no difference. The last part of Rule
(a)
is
only wanted where the country in possession
is
seeking to get rid of
a
prior title.
If,
Mr President,
it
be true that the whole of America
belonged to Spain and that every Dutchman who went there was
a
tres
passer and atmost
a
robber,
if
it
were true that the whole of South
America belonged to Venezuela as the successors ofSpain, there might be
some necessity to rely on Rule I think
I
will demonstrate to this
Tribunal that no such contention can be -made. My present point
is
to
bring out in strong relief and to drive home as clearly as
I
can that
Rule
is
wanted to get rid of
a
prior right and not for the purpose of
altering the rule of international law and especially that
if
there
is
no
prior title possession is sufficient.
Sir, the last part of that Article directed to the same object is,
I
admit, optional. I do not think in the present day there
is
much diffe
rence between “ may ” and “ shall
”.
As you probably know very well,
when you come to study back in the books of International Law,
it
is
very surprising how far back the idea of Spheres of Influence, Political
Control and what are now called “ Protectorates ” extends. In favor of
both nations,
I
should without hesitationask this Tribunal to say that
where there has been de facto jurisdiction, control, virtual alliance, par
tial dependence — that which makes up political control in this year —
you would give the same effect to that as you would to actual holding.
Annex 98
_19__
But, Mr President, I admit that the Tribunal have a discretion in
that matter and I am not [now discussing the difference between the first
and last limbs of Rule
(a)
of Article IV.
I
simply point out that the
whole of the Rule only relates to the getting rid of
a
prior title.
I
now
come to Rule
(b)
which
is
clearly inserted in the interest of clearness,
clearly enumerating what the duty of the Tribunal may be.
Rule
(6)
“ The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights
and claims resting on any other ground whatever valid accor
ding to international law, and on any principles of international
law which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the
case, and which are not in contravention of the foregoing
Rule. ”
I
do not pretend to give
an
exhaustive list but
I
do not think my‘
learned friends and
I
will differ as to many of the main principles of law
which are very compendiously embodied in the Treaty, but
I
take the
first, which in my respectful submission
is,
in some respects, the most
important of all, and that
is
the taking possession of land to which no
person has
a
better title.
Iassert that the first principle of international law which
is
not only
not in conflict with Rule
(a)
but which makes the existence of Rule
(a)
necessary for the purpose ofa right decision
is
that where there
is
terri
tory of which no nation has got either possession or political control the
first possessor of that territory becomes the owner. I will, Mr President,
in the course of my argument, demonstrate that to this Tribunal by cita
tion of, Ibelieve
if
it
be necessary, every law-writer of experience whose
opinion would carry weight, and whose meaning
is
carefully examined and
thoroughly understood.
Then again, another principle of international law which undoubte
dly would also come within that rule,
is
the perfecting of an imperfect
title
by
development,
a
natural expansion. —Ican well imagine there
being the case in which,
it
being in doubt as to whether or not claims
might have been asserted to
a
particular territory, the continuous deve
lopment and control would in international law give that ownership to
the controlling and developing country quite apart from any question of
adverse possession for
a
limited period, Rule dealing with
a
case
where there was
a
clear prior title and Rule
(6)
dealing with the case in
which there was not
a
clear prior title but doubts and questions as to
whether a prior title might have been raised at the earlier stages of the
transaction.
Then comes, Mr President, the question of natural features. Nobody
I think will deny that from the point of view of the questions we have
to consider natural features are of importance.
I
do not now talk of
ranges of mountains approaching the coast and numbers of things of that
Annex 98
_g()__
kind to be considered but there are rules more or less of international
law which have to be considered by the Tribunal. I do not know at what
date we ought to fix a doctrine of “ hinterland ”. I have been surprised
in endeavouring to prepare myself to the best of my ability to address
this Tribunal at the early date at which “ hinterland " appears in the
writings of international writers. It was not called “ hinterland ” until
much later, of course, but those considerations have to be borne in mind
by the Tribunal when dealing with a doubtful question. But, Mr Presi
dent, a really superior title over-rides the whole of this and I shall say
nothing in the course of my argument even to indicate to this Tribunal
that a superior title can be interfered with as far as I have gone except
by including the provisions of Rule
((1)
which are evidently intended to
lay down for this Tribunal limits of time in which superior title can be
deflected by adverse holding or political control.
I
now come to Rule
(c)
and
if
I
may be perfectly frank, as
I
hope to
be with this Tribunal,
I
have
a
difficulty in seeing what the limits of the
powers of this Tribunal under Rule
(0)
are. The words are:
Rule (0).
“ In determining the boundary-line,
if
territory of one
party he found
by
the Tribunal to have been at the date of this
Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other
party, such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason,
justice, the principles of international law, and the equities of
the case shall, in the opinion of the Tribunal, require. ”
Mr President, that that
is
applicable as between Great Britain and
Venezuela there
is
no question.
I
shall have to say
a
word or two about
that but
I
deal with the Rule itself.
It
is
“ in determining the boundary
line
”,
and the question arises —
is
the boundary-line, when the Tribunal
acts under Rule (c), to be deflected, the boundary-line otherwise ascer
tained to be deflected or diverted, or
is
some other compensation to be
given? Ithink the Tribunal may take one of three views.
I
think they
may either say that “ in determining the boundary-line we find Vene
zuela or Great Britain, as the case may be, to be in occupation of territory
which the boundary-line ascertained would have given to the other,
we think that we had better leave the parties as they are but give
a
compensation by deflecting the boundary-line somewhere else
”,
or we
can conceive it possible that
if
Venezuela was in possession of territory of
Great Britain the arbitrators might say “ the boundaries shall be deflec
ted in favor of Great Britain
if
you, Great Britain, choose to compensate
Venezuela, for what has happened for the loss of that piece of territory
or for anything done
by
her citizens
”;
or, on the other hand, might say
to Venezuela, “ we find Great Britain in the occupation of this piece of
territory
:
if
you like, the boundary shall not be deflected and for that,
Great Britain,
if
you choose ought to make
a
payment of compensation
”.
Annex 98
_g1_
It may be (the Tribunal has an absolute discretion in the matter, as I
submit) a giveand-take line; that is to say, by detlecting it where it will
not interfere with other persons, by compensation, or in other ways, or
by determining the boundary-line itself.
Lord Russell. —I do not understand the third... First, one possible
construction you say is drawing a give and take line, the next compen
sation“ \\’hat is the third?
Sir Richard Webster. — That in determining the boundary-line the
equity of the case will require that the title line should be deflected
without compensation in either way. May I read the words, my lord,
again.
“ Such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason,
justice, the principles of international law and the equities of
the case shall, in the opinion of the Tribunal, require. ”
Lord Russell. — That would be deflection pure and simple without
any countervailing advantage on either side.
Sir Richard Webster. — Exactly, my lord. My submission is that
there are three ways in which that can be worked out.
Chief Justice Fuller. — What effect would that have upon the fifty
years of Rule
(a)
?
There
is
no limit of time under Rule (0).
Sir Richard Webster. —Ihad of course considered that that question
was likely to be put to me.
It
seems to me that
if
you get fifty years
absolute possession and control, the prior title
is
ousted and the line must
be deflected. But when you come to Rule
(0)
you have to apply what
lhope and
I
am sure, Chief Justice, you are endowed with, reason and
that justice which you have been administering for years, those principles
of international law which you know very well, and the equities of the
case which includes them all.
There
is
no limit as to time.
I
can imagine an occupation
by
Venezuela or an occupation
by
Great Britain which might take place
I2 months before this as to which they might say Venezuela has no equity
to Great Britain or vice versa. Let me follow
it
out for
a
moment. Take
this case, that supposing in what
I
will call the North-West district, by
which
I
mean round Point Barima — suppose that
I
establish that
onwards from I835 Great Britain has been policing, exercising criminal
jurisdiction, exercising civil jurisdiction, maintaining various kinds of
civil organisation and Venezuela has been doing nothing,
I
put that case;
I
say in that case when you come to apply Rule
(c)
Venezuela would have
no equity to deprive Great Britain of this place. Let me take the case the
other side, taking the mission territory,
(I
only speak roughly,
it
is
that
yellow spot on that map). You will learn in the course of this that Vene
zuela destroyed the missions
in
the year I8I7.
It
may be, in fact
I
shall submit to this Tribunal,
it
would have been, but for other consi
derations, quite possible for Great Britain to have made
a
perfectly valid
claim to the missions.
If
it
be, as
is
the fact, that Venezuela has esta
Annex 98
_gg__
blished certain villages within a comparatively recent time to which the
fifty years’ rule does not apply and Great Britain has to ask this Tribu
nal to draw the boundary line to include that territory, my learned friend
would have a right to say “ what equity have they to ask Venezuela to
be turned out or what principle of international law can you appeal to
or what justice or reason is there to which you can appeal? ”
Mr President, I submit to this Tribunal that the duty and power
imposed on this Tribunal is absolutely unfettered by any limit of time. Ifl may repeat myself Rule (11) is concerned with the getting rid of
previous existing title by virtue of 50 years occupation, possession or
control. Rule
(b)
is
concerned with applying the principles of interna
tional law to such rights of either possession or other rights as either na
tion can maintain apart from the rule which would dispose of prior title.
Rule
(0)
is
in order to give the tribunal absolute and free power to say
what ought to be done in cases in which the territory which they would
otherwise have given to the one side or the other as the case may be
is
found in the ale facto possession of
a
nation.
Lord Russell. —
Is
there, without expressing any view, not
a
possible
fourth construction of that Rule, namely that
it
may have relation not
to the rights of the States or the powers, qua powers, but to individual
citizens?
Sir Richard Webster. -—
I
should have thought the difficulty of taking
that view was that the Rule
is
prefaced
by
the words “ In determining
the boundary-line
”.
That
is
not as between citizens,
it
is
as between
States. That was the reason
it
was thought that
it
was not legitimate to
limit Rule
(0)
to the case of individual interests as compared with neutral
interests, but
if
the Tribunal think that
is
a
view that might be presented,
I
am not to contest it.
.Chief Justice Fuller. — May
I
ask another question as to Rule
?
as to the 50 years which being ascertained, would govern — does your
view cover
a
50 years before I8I4, a50 years after I8I4, or
a
50 years
which might consist of occupation partly before and partly afterwards?
Sir Richard Webster. — You have approached, Chief Justice,
by
your
question the very next point in my argument, and
I
am obliged.
I
think
it
is
quite immaterial whether
it
applies before I8I4.
If
it
applies before
I814
I
think
it
will turn out there has been no change of circumstances
since which would destroyit.
It
is
equally immaterial
if
it
is
partly before
or partly after, there has been nothing which happened at the termination
of that 50 years which made any difference. The third point was one
upon which I was about to address you as clearly asl can.
I
also con
tend, and it
is
from my point of view vital to this arbitration that that
50 years may also be
a
period up to the date of this Treaty, by which
I
mean February 2"d, I897.
I
contend that each nation — the only bar
gain ever made and why we are here
is
because Great Britain and Venezuela
agreed that their actions during 50 years prior to the 2’“1 February,
I897 should be the foundation of rights under Rule
(a)
of Article IV.
Annex 98
_g3_
Mr President, I am very anxious to avoid anything like contest in
this matter if I can, and I will state my argument on this clearly, and I
mean to state it very firmly, I hope without saying a single word to which
exception can in any way be taken by my learned friends. As the Case
was originally presented by Venezuela and as the Counter Case was pre
sented our contention, namely that the 50 years rule applies to the period
up to the date of the Treaty was not disputed. Not only was it not dis
puted but if it ever becomes necessary for me to make good my point I
will show the tribunal that both in the Case and Counter ‘Case Venezuela
argued upon the basis that the 50 years rule was to apply up to the date
of the Treaty, and they further argued, and I quite admit it is an argu
ment I have to meet, in connection with the character of the occupa
tion, whether it was secret or open, whether it amounted to control,
whether it was not giving of rum or old pairs of trousers, whether it
could amount to political control in order to do away with the effect of
anything done by Great Britain during that period of 50 years. We
met them to the best of our ability in the most positive and distinct
manner and we thought we were at one.
When the argument for Venezuela appeared, which you know was
delivered in December oflast year, we found to our surprise that a point
was raised that nothing that Great Britain had done after I8I/i could
give her any rights at all, and that the only way that that could be used
was to throw light upon what was the nature of the previous occupation
by the Dutch, or in other words that Great Britain got no benefit whatever
under rule
(a)
of Article IV.
I
think
I
had best state
it
at present without
referring to any documents which,
if
necessary, can be laid before the
tribunal. The matter appeared to us to be so serious that we commu
nicated with my learned friends in writing upon the matter, and we
called attention to this fact, that this Rule of the Treaty was the outcome
of Diplomatic negotiations between the Agent and Representative of Great
Britain, Lord Salisbury, and the Agent and Representative of Vene
znela by the courtesy of Mr Olney, the then Secretary of State. \\’ith
a
fairness which
I
wish to recognise the Counsel for Venezuela have
agreed that the Diplomatic correspondence should be before this Tribunal.
The effect of
it,
Mr President,
is
this, that Rule
[a]
is
the outcome
of discussion raised by Lord Salisbury in order to protect de fact0
settlers. The first proposal of Lord Salisbury was that any de facto
settlement in the year I887 should be respected. The counter
proposal of Mr OIney was — “I cannot go as far as that, 60 years
from the date of the convention “ settlement for 60 years from the
date of the convention, should be taken
”.
By “ convention”I mean
the Treaty of Arbitration. Counter-proposal
by
lord Salisbury, “Iwill
take 30 years from the date of the Treaty of Arbitration”. “ No”
says Mr Olney, “Icannot take 30 years, because that may cut us out
from some argumentwith reference to the particular arrangement of I850,
I
must go back to something antecedent to that. ” “ Very well, then
Annex 98
_94_
50 years ”as it appears in Rule (a). Ibelieve I have stated it fairly. I do
not intend to introduce into this stage of the argument anything which
can promote heat or prevent us conducting this case in the most friendly
way throughout, but I do say this, that as the case for Venezuela was
framed in the Case and Counter-case and upon the construction of the
Treaty itself the contention was not a possible one. When you know
that Rule (a) is the arrangement and bargain made between the parties
in order to protect to a limited extent de facto settlements it becomes an
impossible argument.
General Harrison. — Mr President and Sir Richard, will you allow
me to interrupt. I understand Counsel to have stated and stated with
accuracy that certain Diplomatic correspondence that was not brought
forward by either party in the Cases and Counter-cases (presented by
the Counsel or Agent of Great Britain to Venezuela), Venezuela had
consented might be stipulated into the case and brought to the attention
of the Tribunal. I understand the Counsel has been discussing the pur
port of that correspondence. It seems to me that it should then be laid
before the Tribunal.
Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly.
General Harrison. — Because then we shall be at liberty to para
phrase its contents, to describe its effect. Venezuela has assented that
these Diplomatic notes might — that she would offer no objection to the
presentation of them by Great Britain. Obviously if an argument is to
be founded on them the very papers should be before the Tribunal.
Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly, so I understood, Mr President.
Lord Russell.—l do not understand you, General Harrison, to dissent
from the general view of the correspondence.
General Harrison. — That if you pleasel prefer not to answer now,
ifyou will excuse me; later in the casel hope to make myself clear on
all these points.
Sir Richard Webster. — I quite understand that. I had stated to the
Tribunal acknowledging the fairness of the United States of Venezuela
that that Diplomatic correspondence was to be before the Tribunal, and
assumed it should be handed in. It is no part of my argument to day to
discuss it at length.
The President. — No.
Sir Richard Webster. —l have stated what I thought was the fair
effect of it.
General Harrison. — I did not intend to contest now the construc
tion Sir Richard put upon it at all, I only understood him to say that if
either party should desire
it,
it
would be laid before the Commission.
Now Venezuela has not asked for
it,
we understand Great Britain has,
and I have no disposition to dictate as to when
it
shall be, but
I
should
like
it
should be presented before
it
is
discussed.
Sir Richard Webster. —Ithought
it
was before the Tribunal. We
are quite at one,
a
copy shall be handed to each member of the Tribunal
Annex 98
to day and there will be no question about it. For the purpose of my .
discussion to day I am satisfied that it will not be found that I have mis
represented by one iota the fair inference to be drawn from that corres
pondence, and ifl have correctly represented it I say that Rule
(a)
was
inserted in the interests of both parties to protect the rights of both parties
in respect of what happened during the period immediately antecedent to
this Treaty.
It
was upon that condition and that condition only that
Great Britain entered into this treaty of arbitration. And, Sir,Ican
quote from memory,
I
believe textually, how
it
came about that there
being difficulties Mr Olney said “ May
it
be understood that Great Britain
will consentto unrestricted arbitration
if
settlements existing for 60 years
before the date of the Arbitral convention are to be respected. ” There
fore agreeing and quite accepting what General Harrison said that he does
not contest the accuracy of my representation,I go as far as to say this
that
I
submit respectfully to the Tribunal that you ought not to hear,
I
prefer not to use any stronger expression, any argument to deprive Great
‘
Britain of any advantages that she may have of the 50 years Rule under
Rule
(a)
Article IV.
Mr President,
I
am not aware there
is
anything else in the
Treaty to which attention need be called. The remaining Articles are
those of procedure, and
I
will with your permission ask you to let me
summarise what
I
submit are the questions that you have to decide sta
ting them perhaps not exactly in the order they would occur to you or
to any member of the Tribunal, not stating them in the order in which
they occur in the treaty itself, but as we appreciate what your jurisdic
tion is.
You are here “ to determine the boundary-line
” between Great Britain
and Venezuela.
I
admit that when that award
is
made Great Britain and
Venezuela will be coterminous,
I
admit that there will be no intervening
territory between the two countries.
I
think that passage of this Treaty
has been singularly misunderstood by those who framed the argument,
but
I
admit as far as an admission
is
necessary that when the award
is
made this portion of South America will be divided so to speak between
Great Britain and the United States of Venezuela.
I
further submit to
you, Sir, that
it
is
your duty in arriving at that boundary-line to ascertain
what the position of the parties would have been in I8I4, which
is
the
date of the cession of British Guiana to Great Britain.
I
think
it
is
by
no means clear that the line would have been the same in I8It as
it
is
today or as it ought to be determined to-day, for really there
is
no line
yet —
it
is by no means clear that the line, apart from Bule
(a)
altoge
ther, is the same to day as
it
_would have been in the year I8I4.
When the true facts come to be ascertained and appreciated, as after
a
discussion of more that 50 years they are now for the first time going
to be appreciated,
it
will very likely turn out that the line which you will
to-day determine, quite apart from the provisions of Article IV, will be
a
different line from what you would have determined had you been sitting
4
Annex 98

Annex99Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifteenth Day’s Proceedings (21 July 1899), p. 867

N\_. .
\"I
73$
f\
ARBITRATION BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENTS OF
I
HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY
AND
THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA
FIFTEENTH DAYES PROCEEDINGS. JULY 218" I899
The President. — The Court
is
ready to hear the argument of Coun
sel on behalf of Venezuela.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — Mr President, we have had some copies print
ed of
a
note addressed by the 'Marquess of Salisbury to Sir Julian Pann
cefote on November the 26
"’,
I895, which
is
not included in the Cases
or the Counter Cases which have been submitted.
A
copy of this was
handed to our friends on the other side, and
I
understand from the
Attorney General that there
is
no objection to submitting that note in
evidence; and
I
therefore do so at this time. Copies will be handed to
the members of the Tribunal in the course of the day.
Mr President, at the close of his speech on Thursday of last week, the
Attorney General, in very eloquent language, referred to the responsibil
ities which this case involves, responsibilities resting alike upon the
Tribunal which
is
called on to decide, and upon the Counsel who are
here to assist the Tribunal in arriving at
a
just decision. Speaking for
myself, as
I
take my place at this now historic desk this morning
l
feel
very keenly the responsibility which rests upon me. The territory in
dispute is, roughly speaking, about the area of England, and within this
area are included points whose strategical importance from
a
military and
political and
a
commercial standpoint
it
would be difficult to overesti
mate. Indeed,
I
may say, that so far as Venezuela
is
concerned, the
taking possession by Great Britain of the mouth of the Orinoco involves
her political and her commercial independence, and
if
this Tribunal were
called upon to decide no other question, that point alone
is
pregnant with
tremendous meaning to the future of Venezuela. But great as are these
issues, Mr President,
I
trust
it
will not seem unbecoming in me to say
that even greater issues hang upon the result of this arbitration, — issues
in which not only Venezuela, not only Great Britain, but the world at
large is
interested.
Arbitration itself, as
a
means of settling disputes amicably between
nations,
is
here on trial.
I
shall not attempt to enlarge upon theimpor
HI
202059
Annex 99

Annex100Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), p. 1119

—H19—
Lord Russell. — This same letter of Schomburgk, opposite 8, would
rather appear to suggest not. He says this :
“ And the only access to this vast inland communication
for sailing vessels of more than I0 feet draft of water is by
means of the Boca de Navios, which is commanded from Point
Barima. ”
If there were a passage round the other Islands, it would not be com
manded from Point Barima.
Lord Justice Collins. — I am under the impression that there is some
statementlthat qualifies that or is adverse to that in some document I
have read.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — The only statement that qualifies that or is
adverse to that is the statement of It-tr Me Turk which has been made in
order to rebut all those statements ofSchomburgk and everybody else who
has written on the subject; and I shall show in a moment when I have
finished reading these extracts upon maps which have been prepared
under British Authority exactly where it is and how wide it is and how far
front Point Barima.
Lord Russell. — I think if you would come to that point, it would be
desirable, because ex facie, the importance to Venezuela of the command
of the Orinoco is obvious. It does not seem to me to need argument,
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — It is obvious, and it does not need argument,
and yet Great Britain is today arguing that it has no importance; is
arguing that Barima Point has no military importance; is arguing that it
does not command the mouth of the Orinoco and it is because Great Brit
ain has taken that position thatl am compelled to weary the Tribunal by
pointing to that evidence.
Lord Russell. — Whether it does or does not, if Barima Point is Great
Britain’s,_whether it is important or not, Great Britain has it if it is hers.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — Of course she has it today, my Lord; she has
taken it by force.
Lord Russell. — I am not referring to that. I mean
if,
in the result
by the decision of this Tribunal,
it
should be found to be Great Britain’s,
then cadit quzcslio, whether
it
is
important or not to Venezuela. _
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — My Lord, let me point out this fact.
I
have
been dealing up to this point with the original Spanish title to this region
and with the settlements of Spain and of Holland.
I
have shown and
I
think
I
have shown satisfactorily that at the date of the Treaty of Munster
there was a Spanish settlement in the Orinoco.
Lord Russell. —Ithought
I
was helping you.
I
almost desire to
withdra\v what
I
have been saying. You are, apparently treating my
observation as
iIf
was interposing some obstacle.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. —I desire simply to make this observation,
if
you will permit me, and
I
make
it
in answer to the suggestion that has
Annex 100

Annex101Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), p. 1124

– 1124 -
or two Mr Mc Turk and Mr im Thurn have made affidavits for use before
this Tribunal. Lord Granville in 1881 recognises this fact. I will not
read the statement but he refers to this mouth and the importance of
Venezuela's command of
it,
speaking
of
it
as
it
has been spoken
of
more
than once as the Dardanelles of the Orinoco.
It
is
in
the seventh volume
of
the British Case Appendix, pages 99 and 100. Now
I
will read the
evidence that Great Britain presents today
to
rebut.
It
is
in
the Counter
Case Appendix, page 402. This
I
think
is
the extract
to
which Lord
Justice Collins referred
a
short time ago, when
he
spoke
of
the
channel possibly not being commanded
by
Barima Point itself; opposite
F,
paragraph 12:
“The said Case also refers
to
the value of Barima Point from
a
military and strategical point
of
view. As
is
well known,
there are other entrances
to
the Orinoco than the one
by
Barima
Point, and although
it
is
true that the one opposite Barima
Point which
is
known
as
Boca des Navios,
or
Great Ships
Mouth,
is
the most used, yet the edge
of
the navigable channel,
which
is
of
itself
of
considerable width,
is
at
least
5
miles from
Barima Point, and owing
to
the nature
of
the soil and the
wash
of
the sea,
it
would
be
practically impossible
to
erect any
fortifications
of
sufficient strength
to
contain heavy artillery.
”
Chief Justice Fuller. — He does not say there
is
another channel
that has the depth
of
this.
Mr Mallet-Prevost.
–No,
he
says this channel
is
five miles away.
Chief Justice Fuller. — Guns throw five miles.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — And considerably further than five miles.
Lord Russell. —Isuppose you are right.
I
do
not recall the
Attorney General making
a
great point
of
this
at
all. As more than
one member
of
the court has intimated
it
is
impossible not
to
see the
command
of
the river
is
important.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. – If the Attorney-General had gone into
it
exhaustively
he
would have exposed the fallacy
of
his position but
he
referred
to
and relied upon
it,
skaled over
it
as
quickly
as
he
could.
It
is
a
point made
in
the Case and Counter Case
of
Great Britain.
Lord Russell.
—
Well,
I
would not waste too much usefull strength
about
it, Ithink.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — In line with the same extract which
I
read
yesterday grom the case
of
the “Anna
"Iwant
to
call the attention
of
the Tribunal
to
a
statement
in
Twiss's Law
of
Nations, Section 131,
where
he
says:
“Upon the like considerations
of
security, islands which
have been formed
by
the accumulation
of
mud and drift
at
the
mouth
of
a
river, and which keep sentinel
as
it
were over the
approaches
to
the mainland, are regarded
as
natural
or
neces
Annex 101

Annex102Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Nineteenth Day’s Proceedings (12 Aug. 1899), p. 1170

- 1170 –
torney General can give me from a copy that he may have the distances
upon the British map.
Sir Richard Webster. — I am afraid I have not it here.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — The distance upon the Venezuelan map?
Sir Richard Webster. — I do not think there is much difference as
far as the Moruca is concerned.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. —But as to the Waini there is a difference of some
30 miles. What was it your Honour asked?
Chief Justice Fuller. — From Moruca to the mouth of the Waini.
Lord Russell. — That has a very wide mouth.
Mr Mallet-Prevost.—From Pomeroon to the mouth of the Wainiaccord
ing to the Venezuelan map is 120 miles, according to the British map
it is 88 miles, and the difference between those two measurements is
explained by the fact to which I have been calling attention; the two
maps differ greatly as to the location of the Mora Passage.
The President. — My observation is that the maps of the 18" cen
tury have very great mistakes, and are very different, — that is the only
foundation of the question I put, because the maps of this time, 1756
and 1757, were very different.
Chief Justice Fuller. — This was at the Moruca whatever the dis
tance was.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. – Yes.
Lord Russell. — Now you were reading from pages 137.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — Thank you, my Lord,
“What I understand from the Report
is, that
it
is
intended
to
make some plantations for sugar cane growing, and unite for
that purpose, with their owners and slaves,
a
number
of
Aruaca
Indians, who are most
in
their confidence,
to
assist
in
prevent
ing soldiers deserting,
as
well as Indian slaves and negroes,
in
that district.
It
may
be
that, for that purpose, and
to
protect the sugar
estates from any outbreak
of
the slaves, both negroes and In
dians, they may construct
a
small fort with
a
few small cannon,
and guarded
by
some four
or
six soldiers.”
Ithink
I
read that, but there
is
another statement
on
page 138
in
connec
tion with this same date. This
is
the enclosure which
is
referred
to
in
the
letter from which
I
have just read:
“I beg
to
inform your Excellency that
I
have fulfilled the
commission with winch you charged me
of
surveying the waters'
of
the Creek Moruca, and
of
reconnoitring the fortification
of
which you were informed. The result has been
to
show that
such report
is
unfounded, for
in
the whole
of
that and the other
creeks
in
communication with
it
there
is
no
fortification
of
any
kind; and the only thing which appears
to
have given cause
Annex 102

Annex103Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Twenty-Eighth Day’s Proceedings (12 Aug. 1899), p. 1737

-1131 -
“ Schomburgk’s astronomically observed positions in the
interior and south of the colony remain however generally
unchanged and thus the northern portion of the map may pos
sibly be placed too much to the east compared with the center
and southern portions. ”
Now, Isay, Mr President, that that is a most extraordinary confes
sion to be made by those who have the monopoly of the geography in
this controversy. It means that upon that map (pointing), (a photo
graph of map 1 of the British atlas) the geographers, or the map-makers,
finding that Schomburgk’s positions on the coast were inaccurate as
compared with the positions in the Admiralty chart and preferring, I have
no doubt wisely, to take the positions in the Admiralty chart instead of
Schomburgk’s positions, moved arbitrarily those positions twenty minutes
to the east, twenty minutes being a third of a degree and a distance on
the map of somewhat like that (describing), but they did not move them
in the interior. They left them as they were in the interior. They did
not verify them in the interior.
They do not know now whether they are correct in the interior and so
say; and confess in plain terms that possibly the northern part of the
map may be twenty minutes too far to the east as compared with the
southern. Now I say that is a most extraordinary confession. It is
not only a question of longitude but a question of the whole structure of
the map and thatl think I can explain in two minutes. Along the coast
here they have one series of astronomical determinations of position.
They have in the interior another series of astronomical determinations
of position. These two do not agree and those on the coast have been
arbitrarily changed but those in the interior have not been changed.
Now that means that the whole coast has been mapped out with reference
to the Admiralty chart and that the others in the interior have been left
and that a certain space of territory from the coast towards the interior
has been determined with reference to the new astronomical positions
and that the whole interior has been left determined with reference to the
old and probably erroneous astronomical positions. I do not care where
the line is where they made the distinction. It may run up here or there
or anywhere. You cannot tell, but taking any vertical line which
crosses the line of demarcation separating the Admiralty determinations
from the Schomburgk determinations, the line of the Waini, for instance,
it must be, upon their coast map as constructed, that a point on the
Waini is twenty minutes to the east, on the. coast map, of the position of
the same that point in the map of the interior; and having nothing else to
guide them a purely arbitrary connection must be made between the two;
and consequently no reliance is to be placed on this map whatever, not
only as to the astronomical determinations of longitude which is admitted
but also as to all vertical lines in the interior where the two different stand
ards oflongitudeare used.
-
220
Annex 103

Annex104Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Twenty-Eighth Day’s Proceedings (29 July 1899), pp. 1761-1762

— l761 —
has any material bearing upon this question, which I am now consid
ering, and that part of the correspondence, we knew nothing about.
Sir Richard Webster. — It recites part of it. However, never mind
about it.
Mr Soley. — Of course, Venezuela is under a great disadvantage in
considering these questions in the present century by reason of the facts
that l have stated. The decision of any question in reference to Vene
zuelan control, if there is any, must be decided solely upon evidence
presented by Great Britain.
Even in this evidence, we from time to time receive intimations, so
that we may find out without travelling out of the record at all, what might
have been introduced, in case the question in controversy had assumed
at an earlier stage a different character. We find a reference, for in
stance, about the year 1850 to grants of land, land held by Venezuelan
tenures, which had evidently been held by Venezuelan tenure for a very
long period in the neighborhood of what is known as the mission Valley
or the Savanna Region, — the mission region north of the Cuyuni.
We find repeated visits of the Postholders, so called, of Coriapo, a Vene
zuelan Post placed above the Island of Papagos and the territory known
as the Barima. We find an exercise of the police power by a Vene
zuelan gun-boat in the Barima, and we find that the waterways of the
Barima were used, and constantly used, and used to an enormous extent,
just about this time during the first half of this century by Venezuelan
traders and used almost exclusively by Venezuelan traders. I only men
tion those matters as indications in the record of the testimony which
might have been presented had Venezuela felt herself called upon to
present jany, and in order that the Tribunal may make a proper allow
ance for the absence of that testimony and to rebut the inference that
might be drawn that such testimony was not presented because there
was no such testimony to present.
Mr Justice Brewer. — You have just been referring to certain inti
mations which you say are hinted at in this record. .
Mr Soley. —.Yes; and which indicate sufficiently what a voluminous
record might have been presented by Venezuela.
Mr Justice Brewer. — Are there, in the record here, passages which
contain those intimations ?
Mr Soley. — I shall call attention to them specifically at a later point
in my argument. Nowhere I want to call the attention of the Tribunal
for a moment to the map which my learned friends have been making use
of during the whole of the oral argument of the Attorney General. Ido
not know what that map represents, or what it is intended to represent.
It has on it a large colored area. Now the purpose of a large colored
area and the effect of a large colored area are to indicate some sort of
continuity of possession, or some sort of unity — some political unity —,
in the various parts of that area.
I mention this fact because the map seems to me to be exceedingly
223
Annex 104
— 1762 —
misleading, and I know how strong the impressions are that are produced
by the constant inspection of a misleading map like that. That map
does not represent the colony of British Guiana. That map does not
represent the territory in dispute. It does not represent the British
claim unless the British claim today is the claim that was stated by Sir
Thomas Sanderson in the year 1890, where he said it should include
all the land between the Essequibo and the Caroni and the Orinoco. It
appears to me that that map prepared by them represents the colony
of British Guiana with all the territory that Great Britain might according
to that theory of Sir Thomas Sanderson by any possibility claim.
Now, Mr President, the colony of British Guiana lies in that little
strip of territory between the Essequibo and the Corentin. That is the
colony of British Guiana. The rest ofit is the territory in dispute. And
in order that the impression produced by that map may be corrected,
I would ask the Tribunal to look carefully at the map on the other wall,
which is the map of Hadfield in 1838. That is stated to be a map of
British Guiana from the latest surveys of Schomburgk, Owen, Hilhouse,
and others, showing the parochial divisions as well as the present extent
of cultivation, the staple productions and so forth, respectfully dedicated
to his Excellency Henry Light Esquire, Governor in and over the said
colony by his Excellency’s very obedient and humble Servant, J, Hadfield,
Crown Surveyor, dated at Georgetown. Demerara, in the year 1838.
Now there is no question as to the official character of that map. There
is no question as to the knowledge and the competency of the man who
got it up.
Lord Russell. — What is its number in the atlas? Do not trouble
about it ifyou have it not in your mind.
Mr Soley. — I have it right here in my notes. It is map No. 79 in
the Venezuelan atlas. The importance of this fact lies in the claim
which is made from time to time in the Diplomatic correspondence that
the determination ofa boundary line at any point east ofthe Schomburgk
line would involve the surrender on the part of British Guiana of some
great part of the colony. That idea is expressed in the British Argu
ment at page 54:
“ Such a boundary — H
that
is,
east of the Schomburgk line —
“ Such
a
boundary would deprive Great Britain of territory
she has held as of right, which she has controlled for upwards
of ninety years, in which she has established
a
fixed Govern
ment and developed trade, and on which her subjects have
expendedlarge sums of money. ”
And the memorandum of Sir Thomas Sanderson says the same
thing. This in the British Case Appendix, volume
7,
at page 137 at
letter C:
Annex 104
Annex105Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Second Day’s Proceedings (25 Aug. 1899), p. 1999

— 1999 —
Mr Soley. — Yes.
The President. — From where did Schomburgk take this bonudary?
Mr Soley. — I do not know where Schomburgk got the boundary
claimed by Venezuela. Of course Venezuela is not bound by anything
Schomburgk states, or by anything the British Government states. He
had put the claim ofboundary at the Moruca. The boundary claimed by
Venezuela, as far as I know, has always been at the Essequibo.
The President. — It begins at Moruca and goes to Essequibo?
Mr Soley. — He has put it at Moruca, and it may be said he has run
that boundary as claimed by Venezuela down very near the identical line
which I have suggested from time to time as being substantially the county
of Essequibo. That is to say the line which starts at the mouth of the
Moruca and runs up to the source of that river then follows thelwaterpart
ing, being about the line ofthe Blue mountains, then comes down south
east to the falls ofthe Cuyuni, to the falls of the Massaruni,to the falls of
the Essequibo, and then follows the course ofthe Essequibo. That is the
line which Schomburgk has put on this map as the line claimed by Vene
zuela. Where he got it Ido not know. Schomburgk at this time had
published a book giving an account of his travels and explorations on
the Essequibo and in this book appeared a map which map was similar to
the map published in the Parliamentary Paper.
Now as to this first Schomburgk map which was published in the Par
liamentary Papers with Lord Palmerston’s letter it has been suggested
that it was an imaginary map, that it represented imaginary localities and
imaginary boundaries. I submit, Mr President that that is not the case.
With reference to the longitudes I am free to say, as I said about the
longitudes on a much later and more carefully prepared map,namely the
map in the British atlas, they are quite untrustworthy, they are ob
viously untrustworthy. I should not have said that as to the British
map except that the statement is made in the British atlas itself. As to
this Schomburgk map no reliance is to be placed on longitude at all. It
is not necessary, as Ihave already suggested, to rely upon longitude or
latitude, that is to say, astronomical positions, in making out a boundary
in this territory. It may be taken by monuments, by natural features and
by natural points, the position of which is absolutely certain and definite,
and that is precisely what this map does.
It begins, as the Tribunal will see, at the mouth of the Amacura. It
follows the Amacura for a short distance till it reaches a stream called
the Cano Coyoni which is one of the network of streams which penetrate
the country between there and the Upper Orinoco. It purports to follow
the Cano Coyoni to its source which must not be confused with the great
River Cuyuni, and it proceeds by a substantially straight line to a river
and follows down that river to its confluence with the Cuyuni.
Now if the Tribunal will turn to the Memoir of Schomburgk, in the
seventh volume at page 5 C, they will see his description of that line,
which after it leaves the source of the Cano Coyoni proceeds in asouth
Annex 105

Annex106Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Second Day’s Proceedings (25 Aug. 1899), pp. 2011-2012

—- 2011 =
But Lord Aberdeen does make statements in connection with this
matter which indicate plainly a line of right. He says if Venezuela will
adopt this line thatl propose on the Moruca, than the Government of
Great Britain will do— What? Will cede to the Republic certain territory.
Now the use of the word “ cede ” is perhaps somewhat beyond what the
situation called for, but at any rate without pausing to consider that, he
says that Her Majesty’s Government are willing to waive their claim to the
Amacura as the western boundary of British territory, to consider the
mouth of the Moruca as the limit, and if Venezuela accepts this to cede
to the Republic the coast between the Moruca and the Amacura. Now I
say that the result of that language is this; that Lord Aberdeen says to
Venezuela “ I propose a compromise line here on a give and take basis,
this line from the Moruca to the Cuyuni. If you take that, I will cede
to you the territory between the Moruca and the Amacura. ” Of
course he says “ Iwill waive our claim to the Amacura. ” Of course
he is ceding all the territory that he claims. He is not claiming, that
there is a strip west of the Amacura to which Great Britain is reserving
rights. He is ceding a territory which is contiguous to the Venezue
lan frontier and by that fact he is withdrawing from the line of right
established by Lord Palmerston and which went beyond the Amacura to
the Coyoni and the Cano Coyoni, and he is establishing as a new line of right
the line of the Amacura. In other words, it is part of the territory which
Lord Palmerston claimed, beyond the Amacura, that he withdraws from
and he says: We will waive our rights from the Amacura, and we will
cede the territory from the Amacura to Moruca up to Venezuela.
That is a clear definition of a new line of right. In other words, it is
the line ofright of Lord Palmerston modified by the line of Lord Aberdeen.
We come now to the Agreement of 1850.
Lord Justice Collins. — Do you say that, up to this date, no map of
Schomburgk’s showing the Acarabisi as the line had been published?
Mr Soley. — No, my Lord, up to this date, that is up to the date of the
Agreement of 1850, and up to 1875, no map sowhing any line of Schom
burgk’s except the Palmerston line was published.
Sir Richard Webster. -And the Acarabisi was not shown upon that
map
Mr Soley. .— No; the Acarabisi was not shown on that map. There
was no need to show it. It did not mark anything.
Sir Richard Webster. - Well, that is another matter.
Mr Soley. —- On the map of 1875, the Schomburgk map that was pub
lished then, which was not an original Schomburgk map at all, but itwas
a map, the great Colonial map as it was called, of Brown and Sawkins,
a boundary was drawn which was neither the boundary put down in Loni
Palmerston’s paper nor the boundary of the Acarabisi, but was a bound
ary midway down the Otomong creek, I will not say midway, but it was
somewhere in the Otomong creek. In the year 1886 the Schomburgk
line was published on the great Colonial map which was a change from
Annex 106
—- ‘Z012 —
the map of 1875. 1886 is the first date when what is known as the
Schomburgk line was made public.
Lord Justice Collins. — That is, the Acarabisi line?
Mr Soley. — Yes; when the Acarabisi line, I should say, was made
public. Turning now to the 6"‘ volume of the Appendix to the British
Case at page 178 —
Lord Russell. — When was Lord Palmerston first Prime Minister‘! Do
you recollect?
The President. — In 1844 Lord Palmerstpn was Foreign Secretary.
Lord Russell. — I think he was first Prime Minister in on about 1858.
Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, my Lord, I think it was 1858.
Mr Soley. — If your Lordship please, he was Foreign Secretary in
1840 because this correspondence is when he was Foreign Secretary.
Chief Justice Fullcr.—Lord John Russell was thetlolonial Secretary.
Mr Soley. — Yes.
Now it is important here to consider what the situation was atCaracas
during the period preceding the Agreement of 1850. Since the year
1843, there had been a political party in Venezuela whose object had
been to represent that the British Government was attempting to take
possession of the territory in dispute which was considered in Caracas as
being Venezuelan Guiana. Their principal spokesman was Level, who
wrote the Report to which allusion has already been made, and the
intrigues of this party had been with a view to their own political exal
tation, but, as stated by the British Minister at Caracas, they had been
seriously prejudicing British interest there by representing that Great
Britain was pursuing an aggressive policy and was seeking to occupy and
to control this territory.
I was asked the other day when speaking of the strong language which
the British Minister had used in reference to Level and to his want of
veracity what connection this Report that Level had made about the Mis
sions in Guiana had to do with the accusation that the British Minister
brought against him. It did not occur to me then that one of the pas
sages read from Level’s article, which does not speak ofGreat Britain by
name, but plainly refers to Great Britain is this : “This is the ostensible
origin ”
says this very report of Level “of the occupation of the Guianese
territory by the foreigner who claims to base his titles upon the protec
tion for which he says he has been asked by the persecuted Venezuelans
fleeing from our towns.” That accords so completely with all the other
statements that have been made with reference to the subject that I could
not forbear calling the attention of the Tribunal to it.
The first letter in this correspondence (British Case, volume 6,
page 178, is a letter of Mr Wilson, the Minister at Caracas, to Lord
Palmerston on April the 2nd, 1850. He says:
‘
“ In order to excite the public mind against what is here
designated concession to the British demands in respect of the
Annex 106
Annex107Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Third Day’s Proceedings (26 Aug. 1899), p. 2063

— 2063 —
spent on the place, but these arrangements fell through on
account of a Government notice dated January 30
“’,
1867 — ”
which makes the connection there.
I
found
a
note which
is
pertinent to this meridian of 60 degrees.
It
is
a
note referring to four maps. One
is
Hebert’s map in the British atlas,
the map constructed
by
the Intelligence Department of the War Office in
I
842 from Schomburgk’s surveys, but not published till 1886. Another
is
the Brown and Sawkins map. Another
is
the Arrowsmith map; and
the fourth
is
the Codazzi map. Now Hebert’s map puts 60 degrees at the
mouth of the Waini river; the Brown and Sawkins map puts
it
little more
than half way between the Waini and the Orinoco; Arrowsmith puts
it
at
the mouth of the Orinoco; and Codazzi’s map, which
is
the one which the
Venezuelan Government were in the habit of using, makes
it
run through
the head waters of the Moruca. That
is
to say, Codazzi’s map,
by
ap
plying the correction which
is
well known, of two degrees between the
meridian of Paris and the meridian of Greenwich,
it
makes 62 degrees,
which
is
60 degrees west of Greenwich, and that runs through the Moruca
river. That shows what utter confusion there
is
on the subject of longi
tudes.
Lord Russell. — Iwas rather struck with the fact, looking at the Palm
erston sketch, as
it
is
called, the course of the line representing the 60"‘
degree coincides very much with the map No
I
in the British Atlas.
I
do
not know
if
you have examined that.
‘
Mr Soley. —
It
is
quite possible
it
may.
It
is
exceedingly difficult to
say what may have been the effect of moving the astronomical positions
in this map 20 miles in the upper part of the map. Of course the result
of that
is
to make
a
straight line
a
broken line. That
is
perfectly clear.
As the meridian itself will be
a
broken line and broken to the extent of
20 miles,
it
makes the straight lines broken lines and there must be an
arbitrary connection between the broken ends of the lines.
A
line which
appears straight on one map will appear very much the reverse of straight
on another.
I
propose now to discuss the question of Schomburgk and his work.
In the first place,
I
would say that
it
is
a
matter of overwhelming im
portance in connection with the boundary question by reason of the fact
that, as
I
contend, the boundary question
is
due altogether, in its present
aspect, to Schomburgk. The Schomburgk line, so-called,
is
that which
has created the boundary question, as we know
it,
and as
it
appears before
this Tribunal.
It
therefore becomes of importance to know what grounds
Schomburgk had for placing his boundary where
it
was placed. And
there
is
an additional reason for that, and that
is
this. From the first
moment when this Prussian geographer made his appearance, he seems
to have produced
a
profound impression upon them, an impression which
we cannot account for
by
anything which
is
in the man’s work.
It
must
have been toa great extent
a
personal impression, or
it
must have been
Annex 107

Annex108Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Fourth Day’s Proceedings (28 Aug. 1899), pp. 2119-2120

-— 2119 -
Now the British Government had, since 1876, made public that map,
and it had been the published statement of Schomburgk’s line, that is to
say, as the British Case says, a modified statement of the Palmerston line.
It had been hanging in every room in the colony where a wall map was
hung. It had been in the Colonial Office list, and had been seen by every
body that had occasion to look at the Colonial Office list. It was accom
panied, on this wall map, by the note which practically stated that it was
the line of the Agreement of 1850; not only the Schomburgk line, but the
line of the Agreement of 1850. Now what does the Government do, at
this time, after it arranged with the colony as to the expense of publishing
the Hebert map? It did publish the Hebert map, but that is neither here
nor there. It took the stone upon which this map of 1876 had been con
structed and caused to be removed from the map the boundary which
had been upon it for 10 years. lt then placed a new boundary upon the
map and published it. That is the map which is above the other. That
was the publication that was made in 1886. The title remains the same,
the date remains the same, so that it would appear from this map that
it was a publication of 1875; but the note
‘in
reference to the Agreement
of 1850 disappears.
Now, what
is
the effect of that? The effect of that, of course, is to
make
it
appear that this line
is
an error and that that line
is
the true
thing that was intended there. The effect physically
is
to extend the ter
ritory claimed, which had been stated
by
Lord Palmerston in 1840, had
been the basis of the Agreement of 1850, had been officially stated
by
the British Government from 1876 to 1886 as
a
single line, or
a
slight
modification of that line. was to change that,
by
the addition of all this
territory running round the head waters of the Barima between
a
straight line running south at that angle, and further, to increase the
claimed territory
by
all the territory around the great bend of the Cuyuni
and between that great bend and the line upon the map of 1876 which
represented the Palmerston line. It added,
I
suppose, somewhere in the
neighborhood of 50000 square miles of territory to the British claim.
That change was made simultaneously with the issue of this Gazette not
ice. My learned friend tells me
I
have the amount excessive, and
I
will say 10000 miles.
Now here
is
the statement that
is
made in the British Case (page 144)
in explanation of this change:
“ When the British Governmentwas about to issue the Proc
lamation of 21“ October, 1886, their attention was called to
the boundary-line upon Mr Stanford’s Map of 1875 above men
tioned. As the line so drawn did not correspond with the real
Schomburgk line, the map was altered so as to show the real
line traced
by
Sir Robert Schomburgk, and the note upon the
map was erased. ”
What was the real Schomburgk line, Mr President? The real
Annex 108
— ‘Z1‘Z0 —
Schomburgk line that had any importance. The only real Schomburgk
line that existed in this controversy was the line of Lord Palmerston, the
line represented by thatmap, and there was no occasion, in order to ascer
tain the real Schomburgk line, that is to say the real. as far as interna
tional controversey was concerned, to change it from that line to the line
put there, which was absolutely an unknown Schomburgk line, which rested
up to this day on no official authority from the British Government, which
had no foundation whatever except those ramblings and recommenda
tions and statements in the reports of Schomburgk, and which never ap
peared at all outside of the files of the Colonial Office till, in 1886, it was
put upon that map. And yet, according to that statement in the British
Case, it shows how much effect Schomburgk had on this controversy.
Why was
it,
apparently, apart from the question of including greater terri
tory, that this alteration was made in the map, and that the new line was
selected?
It
was selected, not because
it
was right, but because
it
was
Schomburgk’s. That was the only reason for selecting it. And after all
it
was not the real Schomburgk, because the real Schomburgk, was the
Schomburgk which had been given approval by the actof Lord Palmerston.
Now there
is
only one matter. before
I
leave this question, to which
Iwant to call attention. And
I
only call attention to that
by
reason of the
fact that
if I
did not
it
might mislead. That
is
this: that in the reproduc
tion of this map, of 1876,
in
the British atlas
a
dotted line has been made
on the extended Schomburgk boundary. Iwish
it
to be understood that
I
am not commenting on this, in any way whatever, except to prevent the
Tribunal being misled. On page 41 there
is
the map which purports to
be the copy of the lower map. Upon this map is
a dotted line which runs
round the great bend of the Barima and also runs round the great bend
of the Cuyuni or
a
part of the great bend of the Cuyuni.
Sir Richard Webster. —
It
went as far as the Curumu.
Mr Soley. —I say
it
follows the Cuyuni. The existence of that line
would lead one to suppose that, though there was not acoloredschomburgk
boundary on the first of those maps, there was
a
dotted Schomburgk
boundary. As
I
say,
it
would lead to the supposition there was
a
dotted
boundary on this first map. Thatdotted boundary, which
is
in the repro
duction of the map in the British atlas, does not occur in the original
map. My learned friend says they have written to us about it.
I
will
ask my colleagues.
Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, we wrote and pointed out the mistake.
Mr Mallet-Prevost. — We have never heard of or had any communi
cation from Her Majesty’s Government on the subjet of any kind.
Mr Soley. —Ipoint out, on what purports to be
a
reproduction of the
map of 1875, there has erroneously crept in
a
dotted line following round
that.
Sir Richard Webster. — In the 1875 map;
it
is
quite right.
Mr Soley. — That does not exist in the original, and the Tribunal,
looking at that map, must not suppose there
is
any indication on the earl
Annex 108
Annex109Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Thirty-Fifth Day’s Proceedings (29 Aug. 1899), p. 2149

THIRTY-FIFTH DAY’S PROCEEDINGS AUGUST 29, 1899
The President. — Mr Soley, the Tribunal is ready to hear the conclu
sion of your argument.
Mr Soley. — Mr President, I ought to begin today by saying in refer
ence to the question or matter, to which I called attention yesterday, of
the existence of an engraved line on a copy of the map of 1876 in the
British atlas, that I find that the Agent of Venezuela received from the
Agent of Great Britain, in the month of May last, a notice to the effect that
an error existed in that map. Owing to some accident or inadvertence,
the information of this fact never reached the counsel for Venezuela, and
consequently, when I spoke yesterday, I spoke without any knowledge that
the letterhad been written. I mention this injustice to my learned friends
on the other side, although I would call attention to the fact that my
mention of the existence of this engraved line was specifically only in
order that the Tribunal might not be misled by the existence of the line
upon the map.
A party complaining of a breach of contract may elect to consider the
contract as still binding and sue for damages for the breach, or, in cer
tain cases, he may elect to treat the contract as broken, and consider
himself absolved from its obligations. He cannot do both at the same
time. If he appeals to the contract as being stillin force, he waives all
prior breaches of the contract up to that time as a ground for the
recision of contract.
When, therefore, Lord Iddesleigh wrote his letter, in the year 1887,
appealing to the Agreement of 1850 as a reason why Venezuela should
abstain from doing certain acts, he waived any right that Great Britain
may have had to treat the contract as rescinded by reason of alleged pre
vious breaches on the part of Venezuela. It therefore makes no differ
~ence what may have been the character of the acts of Venezuela in refer
ence to the concessions of 1881, of 1883, or of 1884. It makes no
difference what General Guzman Blanco may have said in the summer of
1886, prior to the issue by Mr Stanhope of the proclamation in reference
to the territory in dispute. Those matters were all as completely extin
guished, wiped out, passed away, and done with, as if they had never
existed when Lord Iddesleigh wrote the letter of January the 12"‘ 1887.
It is strange to me, inexpressibly strange, that this fact which is based
upon the most elementary legal principles, has been lost sight of both in
the British Counter Case and in the oral argument. The Counter Case
states the situation at page 115, line 30, as follows :
Annex 109

Annex110Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Forty-Third Day’s Proceedings (8 Sept. 1899), p. 2595

— ‘Z595 —
settleinent on the east of the territory in dispute at a time when Spanish
settlement on the west was growing to such an enormous extent.
Any acts in the nature of an exercise of territorial sovereignty on the
part of the Dutch west of the Blue mountain line were prevented by the
presence of effective Spanish control and Spanish dominion in the terri
tory. But the line nevertheless served as a visible, tangible, and inde
structible physical barrier, marking the point, for all time, beyond which
the Dutch occupation could not go, or did not go. It is in connection
with this question of what is the constructive extent of a first occupation
in the light of the principle of national security, that the discussion of the
strategic relations of the Orinoco river, and especially that which we have
received from the pen of Schomburgk, becomes of so much importance.
Spain having settled an empire to the north and west of the Orinoco,
to the safety and security of which the possession and control of that
river was essential; having taken and firmly held possession of both
banks, the constructive possession of a second comer cannot be so
extended as to imperil the control of this river by Spain.
Upon this argument it is conceded that Spain so possessed, occupied
and controlled the Orinoco as to place beyond all question here Vene
zuela’s right to the watershed of the Orinoco. lfthe Barima and Ama
cura are found by the Tribunal to be tributaries of the Orinoco, that of
course goes far towards ending this branch of the discussion. But ifthe
Tribunal should reach the decision that they are not tributaries of the
Orinoco, still the rule of national security prevents Point Barima and the
two rivers being awarded to Great Britain in this controversy. It would
be nothing less than farcical to award the Orinoco to Venezuela and Point
Barima to Great Britain. The nation to whom is awarded Point Barima
is given absolutely the control of the Orinoco. The importance of the
Orinoco to Venezuela is so great and so universally acknowledged that no
statement of Great Britain has ever seriously proposed to deprive her of
the control of its month, unless the present is to be regarded as a serious
effort in that direction. Point Barima in the hands of Great Britain
would not only imperil the very existence of Venezuela, but it would
enable Great Britain in time of peace to absolutely control the main en
trance to the Orinoco. A port of entry established by Great Britain at
this point would put the entire commerce of the river within her power and
control. No one can doubt,after hearing Schomburgk’s report, and espec
cially his confidential letter that all this was the real object and purpose
of his claiming the Barima and the Amacura. ,He says, June 22"“, 1841 :
“ The peculiar configuration of the only channel (Boca de
Navios) which admits vessels of some draught to the Orinoco,
passes ne'er Point Barima, so that if hereafter it became of ad
vantage to command the entrance to the Orinoco, this might be
easily effected from that point. T hisassertion is supported by
Annex 110

Annex111Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fiftieth Day’s Proceedings (19 Sept. 1899), pp. 2981-2985

ARBITRATION BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENTS OF
HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY
AND
THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA
FIFTIETH DAY'S PROCEEDINGS SEPTEMBER THE 19th 1899
The President. — General Harrison, the Tribunal is ready to hear
your argument.
General Harrison. — Mr President, the closing argument is usually
regarded by Counsel as having a special value, especially in hearings
before Juries. But I gravely doubt, Sir, whether, in an argument to a
Tribunal composed of judges, it is rather not a place of disadvantage, as in
this case, and this for several reasons. The Counsel who addresses the
Tribunal comes to his work in a frame of weariness of mind and body and
he addresses judges who are weary. And not only so, Mr President, but
he has to deal with propositions of law and of fact that have been tossed
from side to side by the Counsel for many weeks. He is using the flail
for the third time, or it may be, as in this case, for the eighth time upon
V the straw.
> Mr President, I do not intend to repeat the speech made by any of the
Counsel for Venezuela. The suggestion manifesting some sort of special
limitation that would be upon me, which the Attorney General has made,
will not, I think, shut me out from doing this. I have a strong dislike
Mr President, to the work of repeating myself, and a downright repug
'nance to the work of repeating anybody else. I shall feel at liberty to
discuss this case upon
all
the principles
of
fact and
of
law which have
been introduced in the Printed Arguments
of
Venezuela and
of
Great
N.
Britain,
or
which have been introduced and discussed
by
any
of
the
&
Counsel
in
the case.
I
shall not, Mr President, introduce new citations
of
Slaw
or
bring forward any proposition
of
law,
or
of
fact, that has not
already been definitely stated
to
the Tribunal. But, within those limits,
.** 377
20:2066
Annex 111
— 2982 —
Sir, I shall be free, by fresh illustration, or by new methods of approach,
to discuss every question in the case.
Mr President, it has to me been a matter of special interest that the
President of this Tribunal, after his designation by these two contending
nations for that high place, which assigned to him the duty of participa
ting in practical arbitration between nations, was called by his great Sove
reign to take part in a convention which I believe will be accounted to be
one of the greatest assemblies of the nations Zthat the world has yet seen,
not only in the personnel ot those who are gathered together, but in the
wide and widening effects which its resolutions are to have upon the inter
course of nations in the centuries to come.
And there was nothing, Mr President, in your proceedings at the
Hague that so much attracted my approbation and interest as the proposi
tion to constitute a permanent Court of Arbitration. It seems to me
that, if this process of settling international difficulties is to commend
itself to the nations, it can only be by setting up for the trial of such
questions an absolutely impartial, judicial Tribunal. If conventions, it
accommodations, and if the rule of give — and — take are to be used,
then let the diplomatists settle the questions. But when these have failed
in their work, and the question between_two great nations is submitted
for judgment, it seems to me necessarily to imply the introduction of a
judicial element into the Tribunal. I
It seems to me, Mr President, that anticipating what seemed to be so
prominent in this discussion at the Hague, these nations have adopted
that basis in the constitution of this Tribunal. Mr President, it is quite
natural perhaps that lawyers should magnify the law. Perhaps my
public life might incline me rather to exalt the executive, but more and
more as I live, Sir, do l come to realize that a system of law, administered
by just, impartial, and able judges, is the cornerstone upon which all
domestic and social security and peace rests. And this is specially
brought home to us in this time, Sir, when the pressure oflife upon men,
and the dissensions and distractions which are brought in by these social
questions, come to disturb all nations. Force may be applied, but its
effects are temporary. Force, except as it is an executor of the law, is
hopeless and begets resentment. What is our safety? That in all of
the countries where law has been established, we have quiet, sedate
chambers, where judges sit and where litigants, rich or poor, may come
to have their rights adjudged. That is the pacifying intluence, that is
the safety of our communities.
I have read many times, but never without glow, thatwonderful pane
gyric, in Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, to the law :
“ Of the law, there can be no less a knowledge than that
her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the
world. All things in heaven and in earth do her homage, the
very least as feeling her care, the greatest as not exempted
Annex 111
-— 2983 —
from her power. Both angels and men and the creatures of
what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner,
yet all with uniform concert admire her as the mother of their
peace and joy. ”
The peace, the content, the good order, the prosperity of a commu
nity, may be measured by the public confidence in the purity, impartial
ity and integrity of its judiciary. It is that that stays the hands of vio
lence, and clothes the weak with a sense of personal dignity, and with
that sense the injury is quieted.
Mr President, if I were to ask an intelligent Englishman today who
had thoroughly imbibed the spirit of her great institutions, in what Great
Britain’s fame mostly consisted, and upon what it most depends, Ithink
he would answer me that her glory was in the evolution of the system of
the Common Law, and in the judicial tribunals which she has constitut
ed to administer it; and not to be derived from the stricken field, so many
of them the world around, where the Union Jack has been borne over van
quished foes.
As l have said, force has no place in nature or in law except as the
law’s executor.
Now, Mr President, we have in many lands not only attained this thing
in litigation between the citizens of those lands, but we have attained it
in the relations of those courts to foreign nations and to the citizens of
foreign nations. It has not been long, Mr President, since the United
States of America appeared as plaintiff in a British Court in a suit against
a British citizen. The decision was against us. But there was not found
anywhere a voice to impugn the integrity and impartiality of the decision.
ls there any one of us here who, litigating with a British subject or with
a Russian subject, would not go into your tribunals with absolute
confidence that whatever his rights were, they would be awarded to
him? .
My thought
is,
Mr President, that the success of
a
general arbitra
tion scheme turns upon the question:
ls
it
possible to organize an in
ternational Tribunal upon that basis? The decisions of these Tribunals
are looked to by writers upon international law as the sources from
which they may derive information as to what the law is. That being
so, clearly the value of those decisions depends upon the belief that judi
cial considerations have wholly entered into their determination. So
it
is
with reference to the decision of the Prize Courts within nations. And,
Mr President,
if
you will permit me, as
a
most magnificent expression of
this principle upon which lhave been commenting,
I
want to read from
an English judge an expression with reference to the character of these
decisions which thus enter into and become sources of international law
as expressing better than Ican possibly do, the relation that the judicial
character of these hearings bears to it.
I
have areferrence to Phillimore
at pages 55 and 56 of the first volume.
Annex 111
— 2984 —
Lord Stowell said :
“ In the case of the Swedish Convoy, in forming my judg
ment, I trust that it has not for a moment escaped my anxious
recollection what it is that the duty of my station calls for from
me : namely, not to deliver occasional and shifting opinions to
serve present purposes, of particular national interests. but to
administer with indifference that Justice which the law ofnations
holds out without distinction to independent states. Some
happen to be neutral and some belligerent. The seat of judicial
authority is indeed locally here and in the belligerent country
according to the known law and practice of nations, but the law
itself has no locality. It is the duty of the person who sits here
to determine this question exactly as he would determine the
same question if sitting at Stockholm, to assert no pretensions
on the part of Great Britain which she would not allow to Swe
den in the same circumstances, and to impose no duties on
Sweden as a neutral country which she would not admit to
belong to Great Britain in the same character. ”
Mr President, it has seemed to me that the purpose of this Treaty of
Arbitration was to bring in just this judicial element, and to exclude the
representative element which has appeared in many former arbitrations.
The treaty requires that the persons are to bejurists, jurists of repute.
The words “on the part of” do not imply any representation, as Ithink,
of the political sovereignty, and that that is made clear, the nomination
in the one case is to be by the Judicial Committes of Her Majesty’s Privy
Council, and only one of the two on the part of Venezuela is even nomi
nated by Venezuela, while the other is to be nominated by the Supreme
Court of the United States. There is no Venezuelan here. This latter
provision distinctly excludes the idea of representation, for when that
idea is allowed, the representation is direct and equal. Venezuela then,
Mr President, comes to this tribunal as to a great court. She gives to
each member of it her fullest confidence, and submits her case to be
judged upon the principles of international law and the rules of the
treaty, and not to be compounded or compromised upon suggestions of
political expediency.
Mr President, we have been subjected in the course ofthis argument
to a vast amount of scolding. I do not think that all put together since
the days of my irresponsible childhood, I have been scolded and lectured
so much as we have been in this case by the Attorney General. We
are told that the Printed Argument of Venezuela is narrow, and, Mr Pre
sidcnt, there is asense in which I must admit that it is not so broad as
the argument of Great Britain, because, Mr President, we have underta
ken to do what we believed this Treaty required us to do in submitting an
argument,namely, present a fulland completeqdiscussion of every question
Annex 111
— 2985 —
of law and of fact that we thought was in the case. It is not so broad be
cause it is particular : whereas the argument submitted by Great Britain
is contained in 55 pages, without an argument on any point of the
case, law or fact, and without the citation ofa single legal authority.
Now, Mr President, when it is suggested here in quite a polite and
friendly way by Sir Robert Reid, who does not seem to be given to scold
ing, that if they had known the course this argument was to take here,
they might have objected to the as signments that have been given to
Counsel, as if we were withholding something from them. Why,Mr Pre
sident, if we had come here with protests or in the spirit of protesting and
complaining, we would have lodged a protest against the British Printed
Argument as having been conceived partly upon the theory that we were
not to know what Great Britain’s positions or authorities were until we
came into this Tribunal. Who has had occasion to refer to it? What
did we know about the positions that Great Britain was to take up here
or by what authorities they would support them until we heard the evi
dence? And we are not very perfectly informed, even if we are now,
until we heard his closing speech, for I shall submit to your Honors, as I
go on with this discussion, that in meeting it we are somewhat fighting as
those who beat the air, for upon many ofthese questions as to what was
the status of the title in dispute after the Treaty of Munster, with all our
questioning of the Counsel, we have yet arrived at no answer. Some of
these things, Mr President, have been quite unpleasant. I can but think
that the Attorney General was hardly aware of the scope ofhis words when
he told my friend, General Tracy, whose position and experience at the
bar, and age, and bearing of respect to everybody here, should have entitled
him to kindly treatment, that he had made an argument that was not fit
to be presented to the Tribunal, but might be appropriate for publica
tion in aVenezuelan newspaper; and when he told my learned friend,
Mr Soley, this morning that he had made an argument unworthy of
him.
Sir Richard Webster. — I really never said one thing or the other,
General. It was with reference to particular points, and nothing else.
General Harrison. — Mr President, until we heard the opening ar
gument in the case, we had every reason to believe that any extensions
beyond the old Dutch line were to he rested by GreatBritain wholly upon
prescription. In the opening argument, prescription was discarded,
apparently, so much se, that when General Tracy came to the discussion
of the question, which was a law question, the Attorney General thought
it was not worth while to discuss it and it was not until we asked to be
advised whether the Tribunal as well as the Counsel agreed to put it out
of the case, that it was found necessaryfor General Tracy to proceed
with the discussion.
Mr President, we were taunted with the statement that we had pre
sented a large number of authorities. The Attorney General is a good
arithmetician, and I see he counts often. He had counted the cases that
Annex 111

Annex112Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-First Day’s Proceedings (20 Sept. 1899), p. 3014

— 30H —
to be summoned before it takes effect. If it takes effect it takes effect
when the law takes et'fect—when the facts on which it depends, take
effect.
Lord 11ugg911, — It is involved, if there is terra nullius, and if they are
in on equal rights that they might creep up on one another.
General Harrison. — My Lord, the term nullius idea in such a case is
absolutely excluded. It is the idea that the law divides this when they
have made those settlements; it is not terra nu//ius and no other nation
can possibly come in. It does not paply to a case of terra nullius.
Mr Justice Brewer. — Does not the idea of middle distance exclude
the idea of terra nullius?
General Harrison. — It seems to me, whatever it may have been before
the settlements once are made, when once the settlements are made, this
rule of middle distance, if they are settlements which are approximately
near together, as is implied, takes etfect'then, and excludes the idea of
terra nullius absolutely.
Mr President, Great Britain has admitted from the beginning of her
diplomatic discussion of this question Venezuela’s rights to the “ beyond "
of the Dutch line, and any new title put forward must be consistent with
that admission, must extinguish the paramount title which she has made
and upon this just and natural basis the Treaty of Washington proceeded,
as I shall show, and not upon the theory that, even in I897, there were
regions of terra nullius, or fringe, or what not, over which one or the other
might extend itself. Ifconditions were reversed in view of the unanimity,
the unbroken chain of admission that runs through this, I must believe
that, if the conditions were reversed, the Attorney Generald would have
protested the right of Venezuela to bring in a controversy like this. Ven
ezuela is too glad to be here with this controversy before this great Tri
bunal, and it is removed entirely beyond any consideration of mutual
strength.
Mr President, I turn now to the history of the case to show that from
a very early period there has been an unbroken series of admission ofa
common boundary and a denial of the existence of unappropriated lands.
First I turn to the British Case to say that it nowhere puts forward a claim
to any territory outside the concession, or cessions, or surrender. or
whatever you please to call
it,
of the Treaty of Munster, that
is
not alle
ged to have been in the adverse possession or under the political control
of the Dutch and British for more than 50 years. In other words the Treaty
of Munster and prescription are the only source of title put forward in
the British Case.
It
is
claimed that this Dutch title went to the Amacura.
It
is claimed that
it
included, in some phase of
it,
the whole watershed of
the Essequibo. Now, Mr President with such claims as those
it
was im
possible for Great Britain to bring forward the idea of fringe or that the
question depended upon occupation when she herself was by these con
structive rules applied to the Treaty of Munster in which the Dutch were
confirmed in their possessions and those possessions are affirmed, as they
Annex 112

Annex113Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-First Day’s Proceedings (20 Sept. 1899), pp. 3024-3025

— 3094 —
what she believed to be discussions of fact, as, in the Aberdeen line, when
he jsaid that for Venezuela to insist upon the Essequibo and for Great
Britain to claim to the Orinoco were pretensions that neither must be
supposed to have proposed to maintain. Why all this for no other
reason except [that the Attorney General found himself, as far as I can
see, apparently, either compelled or of choice to assume an attitude in
the Argument of the Case here that was wholly inconsistent with the
attitude which the British Premier had taken in this discussion — he
had to introduce some idea of fringe, some idea of growth and extension
or term nullius or some such thought as that and no thought of that kind
had ever appeared in this diplomatic correspondence.
The diplomatic correspondence, as I have said, proves a common bound
ary from the earliest time and makes an end of the contention that there
was unappropriated land, and an end of the contention that a new line
can be established beyond the old boundary, of the appropriation ofthe
territory by the one of the other. I say again that we should have had
in the Case of Great Britain or in its Counter Case,.somewhere, a statement
and defence of this doctrine if it was to come into this case at all.
Now, Mr President, all this is in confusion up to this very moment, as
Ihave said. I want to turn now to the official notes and diplomatic cor
respondence for a sketch which I will make as hastily as l possibly can
in order to verify the general statements that Ihave made as to the course
of this correspondence. I cannot read every note, I ought not to, nor all
of any one that I may refer to, unless I am asked to do so, but again
I say that there is not in the correspondence as far as it has been pre
sented to this Tribunal so much as the vaguest hint or suggestion from
the one side or the other that there was territory the title to which depend
ed at any time since this discussion began, at any time since the Treaty
of Munster, upon the fact of the occupation of it by the other.
Now, Mr President, I want first to say that Great Britain has present
ed here a good many maps, old maps, and has called the attention of the
Tribunal to these maps. Now, for what purpose? Because, Mr President,
those maps either show or are assumed to show aboundary. That is all.
Every one of these maps, some of them coloured, some of them with lines
that may or may not be intended to describe a boundary, but a long series
of maps has been introduced and put forward here by Great Britain to
prove that in fact when those maps were made there was in fact a common
boundary.
Lord Russell. — Many of them have only boundaries in one direction
and on the coast line.
General Harrison. — Yes, some of them do not carry it through from
the coast or something of that kind, but that only modifies my remark
and shows that each does not show a complete boundary, but each has
been presented here and each has been commented upon as proof. Sir
Robert Reid very candidly said —
“ We do not know how much probative effect they may have, ”
Annex 113
— 3025 —
These cartographers may not have been wise about
it,
it
is
not conclusive,
but they have been brought in here to show
a
boundary and every one
thus brought forward
is
a
separate witness to the fact that the Dutch, and
not only so, but these cartographers when they undertook to make
a
bound
ary line admitted the proposition
I
am contending for, that there was
a
common boundary. They left no territories unappropriated, or wild, or
tcrra nullius, or fringe; they did not draw twolines to define the Dutch and
Spanish possessions there, but drew one line and these maps are brought
in, some of them going back tovery early times, to show there was
a
bound
ary. The use made of them
is
to show there was
a
boundary here.
Sir Richard Webster.— That
is
what Mr Mallet-Prevost’s report says
they did show, that there was
a
lot of territory not occupied
by
any nation.
General Harrison. —Ido not know what Mr Mallet-Prevost’s report '
shows. lam now speaking of the use which you made of them and the
use you made of themwas that they did show
a
boundary. That
is
at
least an admission from'the Attorney General, with whatever conclusive
ness that may have, that there was
a
common boundary and that he
resented or rejected my learned friend’s discussion of the question when
he intimated that any of them failed to show
a
boundary. Ithink
I
have
at page 2203 of the Proceedings and
I
should like to read this,
if
your Ho
nor pleases, because my not
is
note sufficiently complete.
I
do notknow
whether to impute
it
to Sir Robert Reid,
'
“ There
is
something remarkable in the concurrence of inde
pendentgeographers in drawing
a
line from point Barima extend
ing southwards. ”
I
think that was Sir Robert Reid.
“It
is
remarkable the concurrence of independent geogra
phers. ”
Now when Sir Robert Reid said that, he was simply attempting to ad
duce evidence, from this concurrent testimony, of the proposition that there
was
a
line and that testimony was that on one side of that line
it
was
Dutch and on the other side
it
was Venezuelan or Spanish, because,
Mr President the one goes with the other.
If
it
was
a
boundary line
it
quite as much shows beyond
it,
it
was intended to be Spanish as within
it,
it
intended to be Dutch. Wherever these colored boundary lines are
used one color represents Spanish and another Dutch territory, and
these boundaries as far as they extend, this definition by color or other
wise, always brings the countries into
a
coterminous relation.
Nowl will not attempt to detain the Tribunal to go through the refe
rences that
I
had to these maps. Bouchenroeder
is
I798; you read
from the margin
a
translation,
a
former Dutch post on the limits of the
Spanish possessions. In Walker’s map the boundary,
it
is
said, between
the Spanish Government —
Annex 113
Annex114Boundary between theColony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-Second Day’s Proceedings (22 Sept. 1899), pp. 3087-3097

— 3087 —
the question here is one of a line at the Amacura extending into the in
terior upon the general lines of Schomburgk, and aline at the Esse
quibo. And the dispute also involves the grounds upon which those re
spective lines are propounded and sustained.
lf,
Mr President, there was
some new source of title that had never been disclosed in the correspon
ence
it
was essential to the integrity of the negotiations that
it
should be
propounded before the Arbitration
is
settled upon. The limits of that
dispute we have found, and we insist here, that this discussion and deter
mination here shall proceed upon those lines and determine the dispute
that was submitted to this Tribunal. Mr President, proceeding with our
examination of this we find that Article
I
provides that the Tribunal shall
be immediately appointed to determine the boundary line between the
colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela.
lt
then
provides for the method of constituting the Tribunal and for filling vacan
cies. The latter clause, to the sorrow of us all, has been called into
exercise, in this case,
by
the death of one of those first named to sit here.
Now when we come to Article lll we have the duties of the Tribunal
pointed out. They
“shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the territories
belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed
by
the United
Netherlands or
by
the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the
time of the acquisition by Great Britain ofthe Colony of British
Guiana, and shall determine the boundary between the Colony
of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela
".
Now, Mr President, that clause introduces the Netherlands and Spain.
It
does not declare simply that they shall find the boundary between the
existing claimants, but they are to ascertain the extent of the territories
belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed
by
the Netherlands or the
Kingdom of Spain at the time of this acquisition. Now, Mr President,
there
is
aduty laid upon this commission to do that;
a
duty that the Tri
bunal cannot put otf, manifestly. The duty was not laid upon the Tribunal
for nothing.
It
was not intented that when you had laboriously gone
through this long historical inquiry and had traced the title of the Nether
lands and had traced the title of Spain down to 1814,
a
period when the
titles had each
a
new representative, and then when you had gone through
all that, to throw
it
to the winds.
A
large part of the evidence that has been accumulated here looks to
that question. The counsel have searched the records at the Hague and
at Seville and at Madrid in order to set before this Tribunal as fully as
they might, the story of Spanish discovery, of the Dutch war, of the
Dutch settlement in Guiana, of the Treaty of Munster, and all the long
story between the years 1648 and 1814.
Mr Justice Brewer. -— General, would
it
in any way limit the scope
of your argument or discussion
if
it
was conceded that there was no such
thing as terra nullius since 1814?
Annex 114
— 3088 —
General Harrison. — I do not know that it would limit the scope of
my argument that is to come. It would, your Honor, have very much
limited my argument if that concession had been made in the beginning
of it.
Lord Russell. — I confess that was my impression and is my clear
impression of what the Attorney General and Sir Robert Reid’s position
was. There was an expression later by the Attorney General which you
referred to, about coming in after the break, which seemed a little incon
sistent with that, but I confessl think the expression was misunderstood.
I do not think that could have meant an invitation to come and occupy
territory occupied by Great Britain.
Sir Richard Webster. — I was misunderstood. What I referred to.
when I spoke of Venezuela not coming in, was as to territory far west
and there being no advance to the Schomburgk line, not in reference to,
that.
Lord Russell. — I thought it referred to an earlier time but, I was
wrong as to that.
Sir Richard Webster. — I did not express myself properly. That is
what I meant.
General Harrison. — Well, I think this discussion as to what the At
torney General meant will involve us in some trouble and delay. Why,
Mr President, he referred to the Agreement of 1850 as having put the ter
ritory, at the instance, as we suggest, of Venezuela, out of the line of
occupation and wanted to know why she did not come in.
Sir Richard Webster. — This is not a question of personal contro
versy. I say that if my language did not convey that meaningl did not
express my meaning properly, that is all. VVith regard to the other
question I thoughtl had stated it pretty plainly. I do not contend that
there was term nullius. as my learned friend calls
it,
in 1814.
It
is
entirely
a
different thing in 1648.
I
say that within our claim there was
no term mzlfius in 1814.
General Harrison. — Mr President,
it
will be necessary to carry that
a
little further.
If
the Attorney General means to say that in 1814 the
rights of Venezuela and Great Britain were fixed, that there was no fringe,
that there was no territory into which this colony might expand itself be
yond where
it
was, but that they were absolutely fixed
by
status, and
that neither could enlarge its possessiens by any occupation after 1814.
Lord Russell. — Subject to the question of prescription.
General Harrison. — Subject to the question of prescription, yes.
Sir Richard Webster. —Imust be respectfully allowed to make one
statement. The difference between us
is
this. My learned friend, Gen
eral Harrison, is, we think, trying to put right into this clause again the
word “ thereupon
” which was
by
consent of both parties, as the Tribu- .
nal know, deliberately stricken out. Ido not say that there was in the
year 1814 any territory into which any third person could possibly have
come.
I
do say, and
I
have said
it
before, that the line was not deter
Annex 114
— 3089 —
mined and that the action of Great Britain, since I814, has made plain
where the line ought to be drawn, as of that date.
General Harrison.—Now, Mr President, I cannot understand that what
Great Britain has done since, has made plain the line of I814. Has it had
any affect of enlarging the rights of Great Britain or diminishing those
of Venezuela?
In other words, have Ibeen so much asleep that in all this discus
sion and interrogation, back and forth, from the members of the Tri
bunal, with the Attorney General, that when Lord Justice Collins sug
gested or asked him if he meant that there was a fringe into which
they mightextend, or there was a region the title to which was determin
able by the expension of one or the other of the colonies — have I been
so much asleep as to suppose that this question was in the case? And am
Ito be told that in I814 it is agreed the status was fixed. Thatno advance
of settlement by Great Britain and no advance of settlement by Vene
zuela could in any way affect the question of title? Iunderstand the
Attorney General to say he does not take thatposition.
Sir Richard Webster. — I am afraid that no good will be done and I
suppose it is my fault, but whatl say seems to be misunderstood. My
learned friend, General Harrison, uses fringein anentirely different sense
from what I have used it. I did notspeak of fringe as fringe? into which
Great Britain could extend her territory but fringe which belonged to
Great Britain by virtue of the partially developed exercise of authority as
appurtenant to
it,
according to international law, which became hardened
by what happened subsequently.
General Harrison. —I wish, Mr President,
if
Imay address the Lord
Chief Justice, we might have some understanding about this but
it
does not seem my Lord we can arrive at any. The Attorney General
still maintains that Great Britain’s rights may be enlarged after 1814 by
some kind of process.
Lord Russell. —Onecan imagine this argument and
I
do not express
any opinion of course —
General Harrison. —Iso understand my Lord.
Lord Russell. — In I814 there may have been an imperfect occupa
tion or imperfect control and in the intervening period down to the pre
sent time that which was an imperfect control or occupation may have
ripened into perfect control or occupation and that may have to be taken
into account by the terms of this treaty.
General Harrison. —
If
the Attorney General adopted that, as
a
full
definition of bis claim,
it
would somewhat limit myargument; but Ido not
understand that he does and my response to that would be that no im
perfect occupation gives title.
If
it
is
not perfect enough to give title
it
is
nothing; and that
if
it
is
afterwards made perfect enough to give title
it
is
asubsequent act of acquisition. So that this seems to me getting
into
a
state of some confusion and
I
think perhaps that
I
shall not arrive
at
a
more definite understanding of the Attorney General’s view and as
Annex 114
— 3090 —
this discussion is very largely behind me now I may be allowed to go on
and let that question go by.
The President. — Yes.
General Harrison. — The view he has taken was it was a live colony,
a colony grawing and enlarging its dimensions since 1814, and on the
other hand there was a colony that was ossified — that it was growing and
that there was some region in the interior that this growing colony might
appropriate by growth. lf that has not been in the Case, Mr President,
l say again I must have had a long sleep.
Now the Attorney General objects to the construction l was giving to
this clause of the treaty and he tells you that we read it as ifthe word
“ thereupon ” had been in there.
Sir Richard Webster. — Had been left in it.
General Harrison. — And if“ thereupon” had been in there, he
would have understood it to require that the delimitation by the Tribunal
should be the line of -1814.
Sir Richard Webster. — I did not say so.
General Harrison. — Well now, Mr President, it is either the line of
1814 or you have acquired something since.
The President. — The Tribunal has taken notice of the explanation
given by Sir Richard, and you can have another opinion about the same
question.
General Harrison. — Yes. You either have to take the line of 1814
whether “ thereupon” is in there or not, or you have to admit by this
process of expansion or growth the line of 1814 may be changed, one or
the other. Now as to his reference to the word “ thereupon”. It is
worth while to see this. I understand him to say this word was in, at the
point I put it in now, asl read Article 3.
“ The Tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of
the territories belonging to, or that might be lawfully claimed
by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain respecti
vely at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the colony
of British Guiana and thereupon shall determine the boundary
line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States
of Venezuela. ”
The Attorney General says that that word was not there. It was,
Mr President, and Lord Salisbury accepted that Article of the Treaty with
that word in there.
Lord Russell. — At all events, General, it is not in now.
General Harrison. — No, my Lord, but so far as the understanding
of the British Government was, it was left there, and it was upon
Mr Olney’s suggestion that the changed form which the Treaty had assumed
after Lord Salisbury had agreed to the article with “ thereupon ” in,
that it should be stricken out, and Lord Salisbury assented to it.
Annex 114
— 3091 —
The President. — There has been this word which has been taken
out and I think we have only to interpret the article as it is.
General Harrison. — Precisely; but I beg to say that I did not intro
duce any discussion on that subject at all. I was treating the article as
it is found, and it was the Attorney General who introduced the fact ofthe
striking out of the word as indicating the proper construction to be given
to the clause.
Now, Mr President, thereupon or no thereupon, this Tribunal must
find that which Ihave said. If it was not in when that -is found, is not
it a fair construction of this treaty to say that, with “ thereupon ” in or’
“ thereupon ” out, that after you have found this thing, the only depar
ture or deviation from that troublesome thing that you have been sent in
pursuit of, namely the Dutch Spanish line, is expected to be found in the
Treaty itself? Is not that the fair, legal, construction that, when you have
concluded this difficult task and have found, as I suppose you shall, declare
the Spanish line of rightin I814. to have been at a certain place, where
are you to go for authority not to establish this line — especially in view
of this correspondence to which I have been calling attention — that it
was upon that line that Great Britain rested herself and that we find this
provision grows out of that claim. Now when you have been required
to do that do you not conclusively look, and look alone, to the Treaty
itself to find the exceptions that, apply to that line, and how far you may
depart from it?
The President. — According to Article 3 the Spanish line is in 1814
and this line is founded on the line of 1648. That is your opinion, I
think. Can you perhaps help the Tribunal to define and to fix the Dutch
Spanish line of I648?
General Harrison. — That is exactly my purpose to try and help the
Tribunal. I have been trying to settle and to get out of this fog of claims
about terra nullius and fringe, and this power of expansion that because,
say, one tree had a better lift into the sun than another, and was growing,
that it had a right to some more territory than another did — I have been
wanting to get rid of that and to put these governments where they were.
Now I shall come to consider what was the Dutch line of right, what was
the line of 1814, and when I consider that, it willlead me to go back to the
Dutch title, to discuss conquest and the Treaty of Munster and to see how
far in that interval any prescription has applied.
I may give you right now, fully, my position upon the subject. It is
that the Treaty of Munster limited the Dutch to their possessions; that it
was a conquest; that they themselves declared it to be so; that it was in
fact so: that it was done in war; that it could not extinguish Spanish
claims beyond the line of conquest; that the rules of international law
define conquest; that the Treaty of Mtinster confirmed those possessions;
and that the Dutch could get nothing beyond that (and I shall discuss
what “ that” means) except by prescription under this rule of the Treaty.
That is our view; now we turn and find :
Annex 114
— 3092 —
“ In deciding the matters submitted the Arbitrators shall
ascertain all facts which they deem necessary to a decision of
the controversy — ”
that is a wide scope as to an enquiry of fact —
“ and shall be governed by the following Rules which are agreed
upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules to be taken
as applicable to the case. ”
Now, Mr President, we find here just what we would expect to find
when, under article Ill, you were required to find the old line; that if that
old line is not to be the line of our decree that some specification will be
introduced as to the particulars in which you may depart from that old
line and we have in Rule
(a)
that —
“ Adverse holding or prescription during
a
period of 50
years shall make
a
good title. ”
As we have agreed now, in the light of the correspondence that was
brought out, and put in since we assembled, that applied to the whole
Dutch period, 50 years, adverse holding shall make
a
good title.
If
the
Dutch, crossing the line of right at any time into Spanish territory, made
an occupation and held
it
for 50 years under such terms as the writers
upon prescription require
it
to be held,
a
title
is
made.
If,
since I814,
Great Britain, before, the signing of the Treaty, has crossed the line of
Venezuelan right and has made an occupation and maintained
it
under
the principles applicable to prescription for 50 years, that gives hera right
so that we have the specification that we would have anticipated
if
there
wasto be any departure.
If
the “ thereupon ”is out, we want
a
specifica
tion as to what
is
to be done. VVe have the specification, and not only
that but we have
a
specification, Mr President, that absolutely puts out of
the case, as
it
seems to me, the thought that these commissioners, nego
tiating this Treaty, ever thought of
a
one day occupation or
a
ten days
occupation for getting the ancient line of right as you should find itto be.
Then —
“ The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights
and claims resting an any other ground whatever valid accor
ding to international law and on any principles of interna
tional law which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to
the case, ”
and which
is
no more than to repeat the body of Article
4,
in which
it
is
said the following rules are to be taken as applicable to the case, and
by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith, as may
apply to the case.
Now, Mr President, what use
is
sought to be made of that Rule (a)?
It
is
general in its scope;
it
is
only to say that those special rules that we
Annex 114
— 3093 —
have prescribed here (a) and
(c)
are not to be taken as embodying any of
the principles of international law that might otherwise be applicable to
the case. But Mr President what
is
the case to which they are to be
applied?
It
is
the dispute,
is
it
not?
It
is
the controversy.
It
is
not
academic principles that are introduced here. \Vhat principles of inter
national law can be applied in this case to
a
dispute between the two par
ties which
is
defined and in which each has brought forward its title. To
say, here, that this was intended to introduce this rule that
I
have been
controverting—and
if
it
is
introduced
it
extends to the period after 1814
just as well as before,
it
does not limit
it
after 1814 any more than any
other sections of the Treaty are limited — the Attorney General would
read
it
that
if
you find after 1814 that here
is
some territory which
is
unoccupied, to which Venezuela has not
a
title, you may enter in and ap
propriate
it
at any time up to the very day of the formation of the Treaty,
as the Counter Case says. .
Now
I
want to read to the Tribunal the position that
is
taken in the
Case and Counter Case of Great Britain upon this subject. In the Coun
ter Case at page 107
it
is
said
:
“ The contention that the British claims cannot in law have
anything in the history of the present century to support them,
is
not correct. In the first place
it
is
clear that by virtue of
Article IV, Rule
(a)
of the Treaty of Arbitration, Great Britain
is
entitled to retain whatever territory has been held
by
her, or has
been subject to her exclusive political control for a period of
fifty years, although there sult might be to give to Great Britain
territory which had never been Dutch, and might even conceiva
bly have at one time been Spanish. Moreover, there has been
nothing to prevent the extension of British settlement and con
trol,
if
the regions into which such extension was made were at
the time lying vacant. Territory added to the British Colony
by
such extension cannot be awarded to Venezuela however re
cent the British possession may have been. ”
And at page 1I3 and page 114 we have this further statement
:
“ The Fifty Year rule, Article IV, Rule (a), adopted
by
the
Treaty — ”
Sir Richard Webster. — Of course
I
do not mind any passage being
read, but in every case the proposition that
is
being combatted
is
stated at
the head.
I
do not want my learned friend to read
it
but
I
call the atten
tion of the Tribunal to it.
It
is
in reference to those propositions that
this argument
is
written.
General Harrison. — My attention
is
called to
a
supposed omission
in my reading that may and properly ought to have some effect.
The President. — Yes, butl ask you to continue your reading.
391
Annex 114
— 3094 —
General Harrison. —
“ \Vith regard to thelperiod since 1850 — ”
Lord Russell. — The president has invited you not to be led aside,
but to go on with your reading.
The President. — Yes, what you had begun on page 107.
General Harrison. — Mr President, I was only disposed to be led
aside lest the suggestion of the Attorney General might indicate that I had
omitted something that was necessary to the construction and proper
understading of what I was reading :
" The Fifty Year rule, Article IV. Rule (a), adopted by the
Treaty under which this Arbitration is held, lays down that
adverse holding or prescription for that period shall make a
good title; and it is true that any occupation by Great Brit
ain since 1847 cannot of itself confer a valid title to territory
which may be adjudged to have belonged by right to Vene
zuela ”.
1847 being the end of the Fifty Year period. I resume :
“ But no question of adverse holding or prescription can
arise except where one Power has occupied territory by right
belonging to the other; and, except in such cases, present pos
session, however recent, connot be disturbed. Great Brittain
denies that her present occupation (extending to the Schomburgk
linel does in fact include any greater extent of territory than was
occupied or politically controlled by the Dutch and by Great
Britain since her succession to the Dutch title. The only
change has been that in the last fifteen or twenty years her
occupation of the outlying districts has been marked by more
complete political administration. But even if that were not so
Her Majesty’s Government would be entitled to retain the whole
territory up to the Schomburgk line on the simple ground that
at the date of the Treaty of Arbitration they were in possession
and that the territory in question cannot be shown to have
ever belonged either to Spain or Venezuela. ”
Now, Mr President, that is the position taken in the Counter Case by
Great Britain. I proceed now from that point with the discussion of this
Treaty and I ask the Tribunal whether in view of this diplomatic corre
spondence through which I have gone, and which as I have said, is bear
ing not only in one direction but particularly in this as to what the
meaning of all this was, as it was put into the Treaty; that it was intended
to introduce that Mr Olney, representing Venezuela in the discussion, or
Sir Julian Pauncefote or Lord Salisbury, ever for one moment believed
that they were introducing a rule here that was to give effect to any
Annex 114
-— 3095 —
advance of occupation by Great Britain after the year I8I4. I submit
that such a construction of it is to introduce something wholly new into
the negotiation, is to introduce something never so much as hinted at up
to the time of this Counter Case, coming in, and the very fact of the
novelty of the claim and that it never had appeared before, is enough to
bring it under suspicion, and when we consider all the facts under which
this treaty was negotiated, to suppose that under the cover of these gene
ral words they were introducing any admission that any part of this ter
ritory might be taken up either by new or what is said to be a more
complete occupation of Great Britain after that time.
Now, Mr President, we find Rules
(a)
and
(0)
accordingto theAttorney
General proceed upon the same footing, both allow, as he tells us,
a
prior
title. Rule
(c)
does so
by
its own terms and
I
am not inviting into the
discussion whether
a
prescriptive title does or does not necessarily
require the party setting
it
up to admit
a
prior title,
l
do not enter into
that discussion, but upon the Attorney General’s construction of
it
the
two apply to the same state of the case, viz
:
a
case where
a
prior title
is
established. Rule
(a)
says that
if
one or the other nation establishes
a
prior title
it
shall not be taken from her
by
the occupation of the other
unless that occupation has been adverse and has been maintained unin
terruptedly for fifty years. Now Rule
(c)
which deals with the same
situation of
a
prior title admitted,
is
supposed to say,
by
the Attorney
General, you may confirm title
by
reason of an occupation of one day.
Mr President, such
a
construction of documents or clauses in the same
instrument, of sections,
I
think, as the Chief Justice suggested, whether
it
was in reference to thisl am not sure — they are in pari materia and so
strictly in pari materia here that they relate each to the case whereaprior
title
is
established. There are two methods provided,
it
is
supposed, for
dealing with the question of title. Now suppose we take Rule
(a)
and read
it
and put Rule
(c)
at the end ofit, as
a
proviso, and how do we have it?
Paraphrasing bothIshould say that Rule
(a)
says where territory of one
party
is
found to be in the occupation of another that other shall not be
permitted to retain
it
unless he can show that he has been in the adverse
possession of
it
for fifty years. lfl were to write out those termsl should
say notoriously, publicly, under
a
claim of right and with notice to the
owner of the title, provided in Rule
(c)
that,
if
at any time, in any case,
a
citizen of either country
is
found to be in the occupation of territory belong
ing to the other, even
if
that occupation has only lasted one day the
Tribunal
is
given the liberty to confirm it.
Now, Mr President, could anything more clearly show that in dealing
with this question of an established title this Arbitration Treaty has just
two things in thought: that dominion, national sovereignty over territory,
shall only be acquired as against one having
a
good title, and in the deter
mination of the line between Spain and the Netherlands found to have had a
good title — shall only prevail to dispossess that title in the event that
it
has lasted for fifty years and has been accompanied with all those strict
Annex 114
—- 3096 —
requirements which both municipal and international law require to make
a good prescription. Put that and we see just where these two rules
come in.
We_have the germination of them in this correspondence. Lord Salis
bury put forward two cases, a case where the-title had been undisputed
for many generations and another case oftemporary occupancy that might
be an occupancy of a week or a day or a month — an occupancy which he
did not pretend could atfect the title and that was to be provided for in
the Treaty and then according to his correspondence, and according to his
own proposition when he proposed a commission, the finding
;of
the Spa
nish —Netherlands line was to be had and as he said in his proposition for
a
commission
“ upon the basis of that report the line between Great Brit
ain and Venezuela
is
to be drawn. ”
That was his proposition. Those were the two cases which he suggested
needed to be guarded against and provided for; and those two cases are
provided for and when they are provided for, Mr President,
I
respectfully
submit that the delimitation upon the Spanish—Dutch right, the excep
tion, the deviations that may be made from the line of 1814, are com
pletely exhausted, and the whole sum of the Treaty
is
you are to find the
line of right of1814, as between the Netherlands and Spain, and when you
have found that you may deflect
it
wherever
a
perfect prescription has
been shown, and you are given liberty to deal with the cases of the indi
vidual settlers who may have gone in, upon principles of equity.
There
is
as to the line but one exception. Let us conceive what
is
involved.
If
Lord Salisbury had intended after proposing, asl have read
in this letter,
a
Tribunal that should find the line of 1814, all the facts
connected with
it,
and this writing in his despatch that
“ upon the basis of that report ”
the countries should agree upon a line, and
if
they could not agree upon
a
line,
a
Commission was appointed to make
a
line on the basis of that
report as to what the line of 1814 was, reserving simply the question as
to these settlers whose fortunes might be affected and who had gone in
there. Mr President,
I
do not believe that
it
can be thought
by
anyone
who will carefully examine this Treaty that the scheme of
it
was other
than this, that Great Britain should have what she acquired
by
conquest
and cession from the'Dutch; that there was no basis upon which she
could rightfully have any more, that what was left, all that was left, when
there had been assigned to Great Britain what she had taken under the
treaty of cession in 1814, the rest was Venezuelan and that was the line
of rightof 1814. Then comes in this. We have made some extensions
here, then take your fifty years’ prescription.
It
was first said sixty years— Lord Salisbury said many generations, —
Mr Olney said, “ Take two ” which
is
not very many; then
it
is
said sixty years,
Annex 114
– 3097 –
and finally it is agreed at fifty. And this private correspondence which is
put in from Sir Julian Pauncefote tries to reduce it to thirty, but Mr Olney
objects, because, he said, that that will bring it after the date of the Agree
ment of 1850 and there ought not to be any confusion in regard to that
matter. It would open the way for you to say that the Agreement of 1850
was put out of the way and abrogated by establishing thirty years and I
think that that agreement ought to be left to stand and whatever the Tri
bunal may think of it there ought to be nothing said about it in the
Treaty, and no period ought to be named that can be a basis of argument
before the Tribunal that the Agreement of 1850 has been modified.
Chief Justice Fuller. – You see it is thirty-six years from 1814 to
1850. The fifty years would run before 1814 and it would run after
1814. It seems to me, although of course I have not made up my mind
definitely on this, that having started prior to 1814 it might lap over —
the letter is plain enough; it is thirty-six years from 1814 to 1850 and if
thirty years was put in then the Agreement of 1850 might cut no figure.
General Harrison. — It was exactly on that ground that Mr Olney in
that negotiation met the proposition of Sir Julian Pauncefote. The Agree
ment of 1850 was one that figured in the case especially in relation to
this very prescriptive period as you will see. If fifty years was taken
from 1897 that carried it back to 1847 so that they would have that date
and the British occupation under this as early as 1847 –
Lord Russell. – You seem to lose sight of the fact, General, that these
clauses are mutual and that Spain could equally invoke fifty years pres
cription.
General Harrison. — I beg your Lordship's pardon if I have been
stating it in only, one way because, as Mr Olney said in one of these des
patches, this has the mutual form; but the fact that Great Britain insists
upon it and Venezuela does not want
it,
would seem
to
indicate
it
was
a
rule that only one
of
the parties might want
to
use. Therefore, while
I
beg your Lordship's pardon for stating it
in
that way, that
is
the practical
effect
of
it.
It
carried
it
back
to
1847. Now the Agreement
of
1850
then comes
in
by
which,
as
we claim,
a
mutual occupation
of
the terri
tory resulted,
a
joint jurisdiction
in
which neither any longer held adver
sely but held with the consent
of
the other and that,
of
course,
by
the
rules
of
international law cut off prescription and this debate about the
period,
if
it
could be made thirty years, would have carried
it
back
to
1867 and might have given opportunity
to
show that the Agreement
of
1850 does not figure
in
this.
But, Mr President, that
is
a
divergence. Here
is
the treaty and all
the diplomatic correspondence leading
up
to
it.
The terms
of
the treaty
itself, the periods fixed here, the letter
of
Lord Salisbury
to
which
I
have
referred, saying that the report
as
to
the line shall
be
on
the basis
of
the
finding
of
this Spanish title, three times
it
is
said
in
that letter, the letter in
which
he
first proposes this mixed commission
to
which
I
have already
referred and
I
will not read
it
again.
Annex 114

Annex115Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela,Fifty-Fifth Day’s Proceedings (27 Sept. 1899), p. 3233

—— 3233 -—
“ come in to these Christian schools and live about the mis
sions ”
Mr President, there is more that I might say about that but I forbear
and press on to another topic.
May I indulge in a little resumé. I have undertaken to show a
‘superior title in Spain, and that the Dutch title was derived by con
quest and by cession. I have undertaken to show that the whole
course of the diplomatic correspondence ran on that line and that all of
these vague suggestions about a right to expand and that sort of thing
had no place here, that the delimitation which had been made between
the nations before this Tribunal was organized must be on the basis of
those prior titles which I have discussed, modified only by one thing and
that is by prescription or by exclusive political control for fifty years.
That is the theory on which this all went.
Now, Mr President, there never was, as far as I know, any Dutch
claim in any Dutch document. that in I648 the Dutch were in occupation
of the Barima and Amakuru. Gravesande spoke of some rumour ofa
post there, but manifestly that had relation to the shelter that Beekman
-had put up there at a period subsequent to I648—it was nearly a hun
dred years after this shelter was put up that Gravesande wrote. Now
the first appearance in the correspondence of any claim of a Dutch fort in
the Barima at the time of the Treaty of Munster is in Schomburgk’s
talk. I want to say a word or two about that. It has been so thorough
, Iy explained by Mr Mallet-Prevost, and all the evidence laid before you,
that it may be a work of supererogation to do that, but the proposition
to be maintained is that there was a firm military occupation there at the
date of this Treaty by the Dutch — I affirm that it is a thing impossible
to believe in view of the evidence. So far as the evidence goes we hear
of one man and one man only and he a Indian captive named Andres
who pretends to have seen a Dutchman there or a Dutch fort. Now that
-was repeated a great many times. One Spanish authority told it to an
other, and the audiencia here had an account of it and the generalis
simo there had an account of
it,
and they all communicated
it
to the
Court ofSpain, and, as I think Sir Robert said, there were eight witnes
ses —Iwill not say that he said eight independent witnesses, but eight
witnesses to that transaction. Now, Mr President, Icould multiply wit
nesses pretty fast.
I
do not know how many people are in this room or
how long it would take me to run round and tell them all one thing, but
I
could make witnesses very rapidly ifthat made witnesses.
Here lam talking to lawyers and jurists who want to know what in
formation
a
man had and not parrot-like reports of what somebody else
has said.
I
say that
is
the truth of this. We know that they were
there, that they were there for
a
temporary purpose and we know just
what brought them there.
It
was because Spaniards had attacked Toba
go and been guilty of some cruelties there. They gathered from where
\
Annex 115

Annex116Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, Fifty-Sixth Day’s Proceedings (3 Oct. 1899), p. 3238

—- 3238 —
mitation fixed by this Award shall be subject and without pre
judice to any question now existing or which may arise to be
determined between the government of Her Britannic Majesty
and the Republic of Brazil or between the latter Republic and
the United States of Venezuela.
In fixing the above delimitation the Arbitrators consider
and decide that in times of peace the Rivers Amakuru and Ba
rima shall be open to navigation by the merchant ships of all
nations subject to all just regulations and to the payment of
light or other like dues Provided that the dues charged by the
Republic of Venezuela and Government of the Colony of British
Guiana in respect of the passage of vessels along the portions
of such rivers respectively owned by them shall be charged as
the same rates upon the vessels of Venezuela and Great Britain
such rates being no higher than those charged to any other
nation Prozrided also that no customs duties shall be chargeable
either by the Republic of Venezuela or by the Colony of British
Guiana in respect of goods carried on board ships, vessels or
boats passing along the said rivers, but customs duties shall
only be chargeable in respect of goods landed in the territory
of Venezuela or Great Britain respectively.
Executed and published in duplicate by us in Paris this
3"‘ day of October A. D. I899. ”
F. DE MARTENS.
RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN.
R. HENN COLLINS.
MELVILL VVESTON FULLER.
DAVID J. BREWER.
Mr Martin read the Award in French.
The President. —The English copies will be handed to the Agent of
Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, and the others to Agent of the Unit
ed States of Venezuela.
Gentlemen, after more than three months of hard work we come to
the end of our labours. Amongst the different duties of a President of
a Tribunal or International Conference the most sweet and pleasant is to
thank and to express thanks to all who have helped the Tribunal to come
to the end of its work. So we, the members ofthis Tribunal, must feel
deeply thankful to the Agents of both contending Powers who have been
always very kind in assisting our work during all this time. Our special
thanks we owe to the Counsel of both Powers, who in their most eloquent
speeches with great wisdom and ability have put before the Tribunal all
the arguments, all the facts, all the documents, which are more than
2650 in number, and thanks to that oral argument the Tribunal has
been able to have a clear view of whole case put before them.
At the same time it is our duty to thank also the Secretaries who
Annex 116

Annex 117 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 18

Annex 117

Annex 118 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 54-55

Annex 118
Annex 118
Annex 119 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 66

Annex 119

Annex 120 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the Government of her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 144

Annex 120

Annex 121 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 14

Annex 121

Annex 122 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 35-36

Annex 122
Annex 122
Annex 123 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 54-55

Annex 123
Annex 123
Annex 124 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 71-75

Annex 124
Annex 124
Annex 124
Annex 124
Annex 124

Annex 125 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 163

Annex 125

Annex 126 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 179

Annex 126

Annex 127 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 220-221

Annex 127
Annex 127
Annex 128 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 229

Annex 128

Annex 129 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Case of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, p. 231

Annex 129

Annex 130 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Counter-Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 6-7

Annex 130
Annex 130
Annex 131 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Counter-Case on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), p. 130

Annex 131

Annex 132 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Argument on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (1898), pp. 2-3

Annex 132
Annex 132
Annex 133 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 21-22

Annex 133
Annex 133
Annex 134 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. I, pp. 32-57

Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 134
Annex 135 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. II, p. 719

Annex 135

Annex 136 Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, The Printed Argument on behalf of the United States of Venezuela (1898), Vol. II, pp. xvii-xix

Annex 136
Annex 136
Annex 136

Document Long Title

Volume IV - Annexes 58-136