"Mr. Bagot has justly said that we have not dispossessed the Indians of their territory,' they occupy it as freely and uninterruptedly for every purpose which is essential or agreeable to them, as if we had never come hither (by the way we only succeeded to the place of the Dutch), but the tribes who live within reach of civilization, derive most solid and important benefits from our regular and constant assistance.”

The facts stated in this chapter show that whatever interpretation may be put upon the treaty as to the significance of acts of Great Britain, either of settlement or of political control in the disputed territory since 1814, no extension was made before 1850 beyond the occupation of the Dutch at the date of the Treaty of London. The territory now in dispute was substantially in the same situation, both as to settlement and as to political control, as it had been in 1814. The evidence on this point is the evidence adduced by the British Case.

This evidence shows that there was neither settlement nor the exercise of political control by the British in the interior west of the Cuyuni falls, or in the coast territory west of Moruca.

The Agreement of 1850 that neither party would occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute, has been discussed in the chapter on Diplomatic Correspondence. It is only necessary to say a word in reference to it here.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that the British contention is correct, that acts of occupation subsequent to 1814 are to be considered as establishing title in this arbitration, which Venezuela denies, no such effect can be given to any act of occupation after the adoption of the agreement and while it continues in force, nor can any existing occupation or political control ripen during the continuance of the agreement. The question of title to the disputed territory is, as it were, in suspense, and each State debars itself from the right to extend in any manner its occupation therein, or to take any benefit by the running of any prescriptive period. It constitutes an estoppel upon both parties as to such acts, and if either party performs such an act it is also estopped

from deriving any benefit in law therefrom. All questions of occupancy or political control whether arising under Rule (a) of the Treaty or under any other branch of this investigation become inoperative, as far as their effect upon the creation or confirming of title is concerned, from the date of the signature of this agreement. No period can run after the adoption of this agreement. All operation of law as to the establishment of title

is in suspense during this agreement. An absolute line of demarcation is established in the boundary controversy by the year 1850, after which and during the continuance of the agreement no act of either party has any legal effect whatever.

The Agreement of 1850 was appealed to by the British Government as late as 1887, and has never been abrogated. It is therefore still in force.

A word must be said here in reference to the case of Thomas Garrett (B. C. VI, 212). Garrett was a creole of Georgetown, who in September, 1874, committed a murder in Georgetown and escaped into the Barima territory. He was pursued there by British Guiana police and arrested on the banks of the Amacura,” brought to Georgetown, tried, convicted and sentenced.

According to Governor Longden in his letter to Mr. Middleton, January 30, 1875 (B. C. VI, 213):

'It is exceedingly difficult to reconcile the accounts which the constables give with the existing maps of the district, which maps are inconsistent with each other and probably equally incorrect. The country appears to be a wilderness, and the possession of it is claimed by Great Britain and by Venezuela alike. It is in fact a part of the disputed territory referred to by Colonel Wilson in his dispatch to Lord Palmerston of the 30th December, 1850, with regard to which he exchanged declarations with the Venezuelan Government that neither Government should occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute.' As far as this Government is concerned, this declaration has been carefully observed, and there are no resident British authorities within the district. But L apprehend that in agreeing to this declaration Her Majesty's Government never surrendered or intended to surrender their claim to any part of the disputed territory,

unless the boundaries of Venezuela and British Guiana should be finally adjusted, as proposed by Lord Aberdeen in 1844."

The statement on the part of the Governor that "there are no resident British authorities within the district" is a most significant statement, taken in connection with the previous statement that "this declaration has been carefully observed."

In Governor Longden's letter to the Earl of Carnarvon on this subject, dated February 22, 1875, he says (B. C. VI, 212):

"Garrett was arrested on the banks of the Amacura River, the river which was proposed by Sir Robert Schomburgk in 1841 as the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, but which boundary was not accepted by the Venezuelan Government, and is not acknowledged by either Government.

The position taken by the Foreign Office, in its instruction to Mr. Middleton, was that, as far as the Agreement of 1850 was concerned (B. C. VI, 215-6):

"It could not have been intended that this agreement should preclude either Government from arresting criminals in the disputed territory, and that it would be most undesirable that it should have that effect.

"I have also expressed to his Lordship my opinion that for the above reasons-assuming Governor Longden to be right in stating that Garrett was arrested in the disputed territory, and not within Venezuelan jurisdiction-the trial should be at once proceeded with.

"Lord Carnarvon has concurred in this view, and instructions in accordance therewith have been sent to the Governor of British Guiana.

"I have to instruct you to inform the Venezuelan Government of the decision of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

"In doing so you will be careful to assure the Venezuelan Government that nothing could be further from the intention of her Majesty's Government than to sanction any infringement of the territorial rights of Venezuela. You will point out the very grave misfortune that it would be to Venezuela, as well as to the Colony of British Guiana, if the disputed territory lying between them were allowed to become a sanctuary in which criminals from both countries might take refuge, and so escape the punishment due to their crimes; and you will state that Her Majesty's Government feel confident that, on full consideration of the matter, the Vene

zuelan Government will recognize the justice and expediency of the decision which you are instructed to communicate to them."

The declaration of the British Government is most important as an admission that all but special and necessary jurisdiction is prohibited by the Agreement of 1850 in the disputed territory.

It is an admission that the exercise of such special jurisdiction, arising from the necessities of the situation, and to prevent the country from being an asylum for criminals, should not have any effect in establishing control, whichever party happened to exercise it.

CHAPTER XVIII.

NATIONAL SECURITY.

We summarize here the conclusions which we have thus far reached.

1. That Spain discovered Guiana and, by a first and timely settlement of a part for the whole, perfected her title to the whole of the geographical unit known as Guiana.

2. That, if Spain's discoveries, settlements and armed expeditions are held to be inadequate to complete her title to the whole of Guiana, they are certainly effective as to all of the disputed territory.

3. That even if Spain's inchoate title had not been perfected when the Dutch occupied the mouth of the Essequibo, she had not abandoned that region in fact, and no presumption of an abandonment had then arisen; and the Dutch entry-even if a peaceful one-was premature and wrongful.

4. That, in fact, the Dutch entry at Essequibo was not an attempt to appropriate lands believed to be open to peaceful settlement, but was an act of war-the forcible appropriation, in war, of territory known to be claimed by Spain, and as to which Spain's purpose to hold and to settle was well known.

5. That, by the Treaty of Munster, the Dutch title by conquest to the places then actually possessed by them in Guiana, was confirmed by cession from Spain.

6. That the treaty involved the concession that what was not given to the Dutch was retained by Spain, and that, when the limits of the Dutch possessions were marked, the territory beyond -to the north and west-was Spain's territory.

7. That, at the date of the Treaty of Munster, the Dutch were not in the possession of any part of the disputed territory.