step, towards establishing political control over the Indians so employed, but the difference consists in the fact that the political relation which was established by the Spaniards with the Indians never was established by the Dutch.

We think that we can affirm with confidence that up to the time of Lord Palmerston's reference to the tribes living near the fort as "independent Indian tribes," there had been no pretence, either on the part of the Dutch or of the English, that the limits of Dutch Guiana had been extended by reason of any control, political or otherwise, exercised over the Indian tribes. Schomburgk did not allude to it. He was not, according to his own statements, in any way influenced by it in fixing the boundaries he proposed. He based them wholly upon what he claimed were traces of actual occupation by the Dutch and upon considerations as to natural boundaries. It remained for the makers of affidavits in British Guiana, after the adoption of the Treaty, to discover innumerable "Indian traditions" as to the supremacy of the Dutch over the tribes. It is a curious commentary upon the case of these Indian affidavits, taken before Mr. McTurk and other British officials, to prove Indian "traditions" before this solemn tribunal, that it was a common thing, both in Dutch and British practice, for a case to be thrown out of court because the Indian testimony on which it rested was deemed worthless.

CHAPTER XVI.

ADVERSE HOLDING-MISCELLANEOUS ACTS.

It has been shown by the evidence that, notwithstanding the claims made by the British Case, there was no settlement whatever, during the history of the Dutch colony of Essequibo, west of the falls of the Cuyuni, in the interior, or west of Moruca, on the coast.

It has been shown also that, in so far as political control is to be considered a determining factor in the question of adverse holding, no political control was exercised by the Dutch in that territory, but that it was maintained by the Spanish; that the control so maintained by the Spanish included numerous acts of territorial dominion, implying the exercise of the highest rights of territorial sovereignty, and that it were exerted not alone upon subjects, but upon foreigners in the territory, and particularly upon the Dutch; and, finally, that it extended over the whole period of Dutch rule.

Nor is it claimed by the British Case that political control, in any ordinary meaning of that term, was exercised by the Dutch in the territory in dispute, or that anything resembling the exercise of sovereignty by the agency of political government was to be found there or was even thought of by the Dutch colonial authorities. It is not suggested that any territorial jurisdiction was exercised over all persons, as being in a territory subject to such jurisdiction. It is not intimated that a Spaniard, a Frenchman, or even an inhabitant of Surinam, was ever apprehended in this district, or tried at Essequibo for an offense committed there. It is not pretended that a single grant of land was made by the Dutch either west of Moruca or of the falls of Cuyuni. It is not pretended that any right of exclusion was ever exercised by the Dutch over the territory, although such a right was constantly asserted by the Spaniards, both in the interior and the coast.

Of the acts of the Dutch in connection with the territory which the British Case advances as in some sense bearing on political control, those connected with trade and with the Indians have been discussed. A few minor facts, referred to for the same purpose, remain to be considered. They are as follows:

(1) Transit and passports.

(2) Timber-cutting.

(3) Postholders.

(4) Recapture of fugitive slaves.

(5) Creole Dutch language.

(6) Hunting and fishing.

(7) Mining.

(1.) TRANSIT AND PASSPORTS.

The giving of passports implies nothing with reference to ter ritorial control. Passports, even in civilized countries, are given to subjects leaving the country to travel in foreign countries with the object of affording an official identification, both as to the individuality and as to the nationality of the holder. They served the same purpose in the seventeenth and eighteen centuries in Guiana. They served the additional purpose of a permit on the part of the Government of the person to whom they were issued to make a journey and of a trading Company to trade. In that early state of society and in the situation in which the colonies found themselves, it was necessary for the Colonial authorities to exercise an extensive supervision over the movements of the colonists, and to know at all times where to find them. If they were not at their homes or in the limits of movement of the colony, it was necessary for the Colonial Government to know where they were; and it was substantially the practice of both colonies not to allow individuals to pass out of the colony without passports from their own Government. The passports were of use when the individual came into the territory of the other State, because they afforded a certain indication as to

who the bearer was, and what he was doing, and whether his doings were regular and proper; in fact, if he went without one he ran the risk of suffering arrest.

Thus, it was the regular practice to give passports to colonists leaving the colony by way either of the interior or the coast territory. These passports were required to be shown at the Moruca post. Thus, the Postholder at the latter place was instructed in 1767 (B. C. III, 154) that " he shall allow no one to pass the post without a passport, but arrest and bring up any one coming there without one."

Jan la Riviere in 1768 had a passport to enable him to pass the post at Moruca, though it expressly forbade him to settle in Barima (B. C. III, 176).

In like manner, when, after the destruction of the first Cuyuni post, the Court at Essequibo, in 1761, established a sort of informal post (B. C. II, 202) at the plantation of Crewitz, below the Cuyuni falls, and therefore at the colonial frontier, it resolved, in order to put a stop to contraband trade, especially in slaves, "to order every one trading or going up that river to provide himself with a proper pass, which must be shown to C. Crewitz, at whose residence they are to make a halt."

In the same way, passes were frequently issued to pass the post of Arinda, in the upper Essequibo (B. C. IV, 189).

Thus, Storm reported in 1770 (V. C. II, 216) that a young colonist, "having asked for a permit to go to Maroco, and having obtained the same, I now hear that he went farther, and that he was arrested and is now a prisoner in Orinocque. This would imply that colonists could not even go to Moruca without a passport.

So, the Governor of Surinam wrote in 1712 (V. C. II, 73):

"No whites are allowed to enter the Orinoco except with a pass."

Possibly, however, this may mean a pass from the Spanish Government.

The Dutch found the use of passports particularly necessary on account of the trade restrictions which they had thrown around their colonists; and if one of these left the colony for a time, it was necessary for the Colonial authorities to know that he was not engaged in a forbidden trade, to the prejudice of the Company, and it was not unusual to name in the passport the trade in which the colonist was allowed to engage. Thus, Commandeur Van der Heyden reported (B. C. I, 238), January 6, 1714, at which date, it will be remembered, the reservation of trade in red slaves, annatto and balsam was in operation:

"In the month of September of the past year I received information through an Indian that a certain Christoffel Berkenbosch some little time before had asked for a passport to trade for vessels in Orinoco. There, against the orders given and the prohibition made, he had managed to get ten red slaves and three casks of balsam oil, wherewith he intended to make his way to Surinam, but through severe illness as he was returning had been compelled to land near the River Pomeroon. I immediately sent orders to the Postholder in Wacquepo to arrest the said person and his merchandise, provided they could be got, and to bring them to the fort, which order was promptly carried out. The goods being come into our power have been confiscated to the profit of the Noble Company.'

In 1719 the Court of Policy reported the capture of several Dutch colonists in Orinoco for violation of the trading regulations of the Spanish in that river (B. C. I., 250), stating:

"For this reason, it has been resolved to grant no passes to Orinoco before and ere we shall have received circumstantial information of everything, so as to give satisfaction to the aforesaid Governor [of Guayana], and maintain friendship with our neighbour."

Passports, however, were given on both sides. They are repeatedly referred to in the correspondence as given by the Dutch, and they are occasionally referred to as given by the Spanish. Thus, Storm noted, in 1764 (V. C. II, 155):

"Two Spaniards came to me with formal passports from the Governor to come here. Essequibo was not expressly mentioned in them, but the neighbouring Colonies of friends and allies, which is equivalent."