ing presents ceased about 1838, and spread all over the surrounding territory: "By the following year [1839] no Indians were to be found residing at the posts." (B. C. p. 105.)

cance.

The Governor, who was alive to the boundary question, seemed to think that the use of a few Dutch words was of great signifiThe illustrations which he gives of such words in use among the Indians, however, only show that they gave Dutch names to those articles the use of which had been taught them by the Dutch. He says:

"Even in their own dialects the Dutch names of, for instance, rum, gunpowder, &c., were incorporated."

He certainly could not have happened upon two more felicitous. illustrations of the methods and instruments of Dutch influence over the Indians. Of this "influence," so much dwelt upon by the British Case, the main factor was rum; the second was gunpowder. The Spaniards never traded in either of these commodities with the Indians.

If the Governor had pursued his investigations further, he would probably have found in the Indian vocabularies plenty of Spanish words, but they would have related to religious worship, agriculture and the useful arts.

(6.) HUNTING AND FISHING.

There is very little evidence of hunting in the disputed territory. There is hardly a reference to it in a century and a half except a single mention of the wild-hog hunting near the Essequibo River in the early days. It is evident that no general practice of hunting was carried on by the Dutch in the disputed territory during this period; and their salted pork was bought from Indians who did the hunting and brought the meat to Essequibo.

In reference to the coast fishery, the Spaniards prohibited it to the Dutch as early as 1731, and their rigid enforcement of the pro

hibition not only at the mouth of the Orinoco, but along the coast and at that of the Waini, was one principal source of complaint in the Dutch Remonstrance of 1769. It was only as to the Waini, however, that the Dutch claimed a territorial right. As to the Orinoco fishery, which was carried on in the neighborhood of Point Barima, they asserted no ownership of territory, but only claimed the enjoyment of the fishery on the ground of immemorial use, a fact which the Spaniards disputed.

This claim of immemorial use, advanced in 1769, was made in ignorance of the facts. The Court of Policy in 1728 (B. C. II, 7) recorded the fact that the Spaniards had seized a Surinam vessel fishing in the neighborhood of the Orinoco. In 1746 Essequibo fishing canoes were seized, and again in 1760.

Even if the Dutch hunted and fished during this whole period, or during any fifty years of this whole period, over all the territory in question, it could not give them any rights as an adverse holder. These rights can only be based upon acts which are inconsistent with ownership in another; and hunting and fishing in uninhabited territory and on an uninhabited coast must be presumed to be done under the license of the owner, there being nothing to show to the contrary. Such hunting as was done was too inconsiderable and remote from the Spanish settlements to receive any attention. As was well said by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York:

"It was never supposed that the hunter had possession of the forest through which he roamed in pursuit of game; and no more can a woodchopper be said to possess the woods into which he enters to cut logs." Thompson v. Burhas, 79 New York Reports, 93-99.

(7.) MINING.

Notwithstanding the fact that the disputed territory contained gold mines that were among the richest of the world, these mines were practically unknown until the Spaniards discovered them. The Dutch authorities suspected the existence of mines, and em

ployed an engineer to do a little prospecting in the Blue Mountains in 1742, who, however, found nothing. After a few months of unsuccessful search he was dismissed from the service of the Company.

66

There is no other reference to mines except to the so-called 'Crystal Mine," near the upper Essequibo. Of this the only report is that a Postholder was on one occasion sent to examine it, but failed to do so, because the Indians "strictly forbade him to search or to dig" (B. C. IV, 18). It never was heard of afterwards. Notwithstanding this fact and the uncertainty of its location, it is put down as the "Crystal Mine of the Dutch" on Map 2 of the British Atlas.

CHAPTER XVII.

EVENTS IN GUIANA FROM 1814 TO 1850.

It has been already stated, in reference to the date as of which the boundary is to be ascertained, that acts occurring since the acquisition of British Guiana by Great Britain in 1814 cannot be considered under any aspect as establishing title in Great Britain. It is nevertheless necessary, in view of the position advanced in the British Case, to take a brief review of these acts to show that there was neither British settlement nor control in the territory in dispute during this period, and that consequently, even under the construction of the Treaty for which the British Case contends, the events of this period do not affect the question of boundary.

In considering the events in Guiana subsequent to the Treaty of 1814, a division must be made at the year 1850, because of the agreement concluded in that year between Great Britain and Venezuela that neither party would occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute.

The examination of the evidence, from 1814 to 1850, which is of course entirely to be found in the British Case, shows no advance from the position of 1814, in so far as the disputed territory west of the Moruca and Cuyuni falls is concerned.

The geographical divisions will be considered as before in the following order:

(1) Essequibo.

(2) Pomeroon.

(3) Interior.

(4) Coast.

1. ESSEQUIBO.

Development occurred during this period in the Essequibo settlements, chiefly on the coast. The trend of this development was largely to the eastwards towards Demerara, and culminated

in the establishment of the capital at Georgetown, on that river. A considerable movement was also noticeable on the western bank of the Essequibo.

The mouth of the Essequibo has a peculiar conformation. The line of the left bank of the river is continued far out to sea beyond the line of the right bank, so that the mouth of the river is, properly speaking, a line drawn not at right angles to the river's course, but running diagonally across from the eastern headland to a point where the shore-line begins to trend to the west. This shore-line on the west, where the bank of the river at its mouth merges in the sea-coast, was known as the Arabian (or Arabisi) Coast, and contains the mouths of several creeks, such as Capoey and Oene.

Under the influence of the removal of the capital, the relative positions of the Demerara and Essequibo settlements became reversed, and whereas in the eighteenth century Demerara had been subordinate to Essequibo, in the nineteenth Essequibo became a mere dependency of the other. This effect was most noticeable, as might be expected, in the upper settlements.

In 1816 the boundaries of control were still the falls of the Mazaruni and Cuyuni, and they are mentioned as the limits up to which the militia were mustered, in the letter of Lanfferman, Captain of Militia, May 22, 1816 (B. C. VI, 6).

Even as late as 1831, it appears from the testimony of Quartermaster General Hilhouse in the trial of Billy William (B. C. VI, 41), that there were hardly any settlers in the neighborhood of the junction of the three rivers, and that there were none beyond the falls. He said.

"There is a white settler at the Falls, another at the junction, but grants have been made of the lands on both sides up to the Falls of the three branches of the Essequibo, viz., the Essequibo, the Mazarony, and Cayone."

Superintendent King, in his report of September 20, 1841, (B. C. VI, 115), stated: